A. As to the insult, the Defendant did not have to make an insulting statement to the victim, and only made an obscene and indecent expression, and there was no performance at the time when the Defendant made the statement to the victim.

B. As to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of noise measurement), the vehicle on board by the defendant was only driven due to the slope of the ground, and thus, the defendant did not have the intention to drive, and it cannot be viewed as driving.

In addition, the defendant did not refuse to take a drinking test by a police officer, and the defendant was not in a state that can be recognized as being drunk at the time of the case.

2. The Defendant also argued in the lower court’s trial as the same, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be said that there was an error of misconception of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.