1. In addition, a measurement conducted by a police officer to ascertain whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol pursuant to Article 44(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 12917, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “Road Traffic Act”) shall be understood as a measurement conducted by a drinking measuring instrument, i.e., a method of objectively converting the degree of his/her drinking from the retoxic and objectively converting the degree of his/her drinking (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do5377, Mar. 10, 200; 2008Do2170, May 8, 2008). In addition, when a police officer measure whether a driver drinking alcohol or the degree of drinking, a police officer is under the influence of discretion to a certain extent with respect to the method of measuring it or the degree of drinking so that he/she can demand a driver under the influence of alcohol to present the degree of drinking in addition to the method of measuring the degree of drinking to the extent reasonably necessary (see Supreme Court Decision 29Do.

It is reasonable to view it.

Meanwhile, “the case of failing to comply with the measurement by a police officer” under Article 148-2(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act means under the influence of alcohol in light of the overall progress of the case.

a driver who has a reasonable reason to be appointed is objectively and objectively deemed to have no intention to respond to the measurement of drinking.

Whether the driver's refusal to take a measurement is objectively clear, including the driver's words, attitudes, etc. at the time when the driver's refusal to take a measurement, the reason why the police officer's demand for the measurement was made, the method and degree of such demand, the preparation of relevant documents according to the refusal to take a measurement such as the report on detection of the driver in charge, and the reason, attitude, and refusal time of the driver's refusal to take a measurement