2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include the following: (a) the Defendant recognized that he/she committed his/her crime and reflects the wrong; (b) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment in addition to the punishment once by fine; and (c) the Defendant is living an infectious disease due to his/her depression, etc.

However, since there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, it not only interfered with the police officers' legitimate performance of their official duties by taking a bath or exercising violence against the police officers who request him/her to accompany a police box to take a breath test, but also did not comply with a police officer's request for measurement of drinking without justifiable grounds. In light of the circumstances leading to each of the crimes of this case and the method of the commission of crimes, etc., the crime is not good, and the responsibility for the crime is not easy

The current Road Traffic Act stipulates that where a police officer refuses to take a drinking test without any justifiable reason for the purpose of preventing the drinking driving that threatens the safety of road traffic and ensuring the awareness of it, it shall be punished more strictly than a simple drinking driving.

All these circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition to this point, in full view of various circumstances, including the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.