도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the police officer’s act by carrying the defendant to the E-station is lawful as protective measures provided by Article 4(1)1 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and as long as the defendant refuses to take a alcohol level by legitimate police officers, the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (Refusal to take a blood level measurement) is established against the defendant. However,
2. The court below adopted and examined the evidence, i.e., ① the defendant was driven without a traffic accident but about 15 km, ③ the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time, but it is difficult to deem that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time, but failed to reach the normal judgment or decision-making ability, ② if the police officer intended to take protective measures against the defendant, he should have taken the measures such as having the defendant enter the police station where the main body is installed, and even if he did not go so, he should have taken such measures as having the defendant enter the police station at the place corresponding to the main body. The court below did not complete such procedures. ③ If the police officer did not take protective measures against the defendant, the police officer did not immediately refuse to comply with the request of the police officer to take protective measures under Article 6 of the operating rules of the main body, ③ The police officer did not immediately inform the person under the influence of alcohol or any other person under the influence of alcohol pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers.