Inasmuch as there was no reasonable ground to determine a person, the Defendant is deemed to have committed a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (refiscing of drinking);

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on each evidence at the time of the judgment, found that G police officers around August 27, 2015 demanded the Defendant to sign while presenting a written consent to blood gathering, the Defendant did not comply with such request, but determined that the police officers and H, who worked with G, did not comply with the foregoing series of acts conducted by the Defendant at the time when they controlled the driving of alcohol, and that the Defendant was red, and that the Defendant’s blood was at least red, and that the Defendant’s blood was at the time when he did not respond to the drinking test during the drinking control, and that the Defendant did not comply with the foregoing 15-minute alcohol measurement even when he was demanded by the above police officers to take a breath alcohol measurement by the breath in the course of the above drinking control. The lower court found the Defendant’s refusal to sign at least 0% of the above breath alcohol level by the police officers and H as a means of measuring a series of acts conducted by the Defendant at least 20:08 on August 15, 2015.

prescribed in subsection (1) of this section.

In addition, it is reasonable to see that police officers require the defendant to take a drinking test over about 30 minutes of alcohol, and the defendant to take a drinking test at the defendant's request.