A. In fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant responded to the pulmonary measurement three times requested by police officers, but the police officer did not have sufficient time and did not cut the pulmonary measuring instrument from the Defendant’s entrance, and instead dealt with it as if the Defendant did not comply with the breath test, and the Defendant’s request for collection of blood was

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of a fine of five million won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. 사실오인 내지 법리오해 주장에 관한 판단 원심이 적법하게 조사하여 채택한 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 경찰공무원이 호흡측정요구를 하였을 때 피고인은 3번 모두 음주측정기에 입을 대고 부는 시늉만 하였던 점, ② 피고인은 당시 경찰공무원에게 신체 이상 등의 사유로 호흡측정기에 의한 측정이 불가능 내지 심히 곤란하다

In full view of the fact that there was no record of demanding a measurement by blood sampling on the ground that the method of measurement by the pulmonary measuring instrument is uncertain (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4220, Oct. 25, 2002), etc., the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant refused a measurement by blood sampling without any justifiable reason as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

[On the other hand, the defendant is also at issue that police officers are not informed of the method of measurement by blood collecting method, but there is no obligation to notify the driver who refuses to comply with the measurement by the respiratory tester without any special reason to inform the driver of the method of measurement by blood collecting and ask him/her whether or not he/she is selected (the judgment of the Supreme Court is above).