2. As seen, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The defendant had already completed a drinking test in the state that he was unable to understand the demand of the police for additional drinking measurement due to a defect in hearing.

As we think and think of it, there was no intention to refuse to measure drinking.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in its judgment on the grounds of the above argument under the title “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”.

In addition to the circumstances that the court below found as the grounds for conviction, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's drinking test without justifiable grounds, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below.

Since the judgment of the court below is recognized, it is just and acceptable, and there is no error by mistake of fact that affected the judgment.

① 증인 G은 당 심 법정에 다시 출석하여, “ 음주 감지기를 들이댔을 때 피고인이 말을 하고 있어서 음주 감지기가 반응한 적은 있으나, 피고인이 음주 감지기에 호흡을 불어넣은 적은 없다.

“The statement was made.”

The Defendant did not comply with a measurement by a police officer in a manner that the police officer instructs the police officer to take measures, and only operated a drinking so that the police officer does not take measures, and thereafter requested the police officer to take a correct measurement of drinking, but refused to take such measures, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have complied with a drinking test.

(2) At the time, the Defendant “whether or not the Defendant has already complied with a drinking test.”

“A police officer is divided into the resistance but the defect is a hearing impairment.”