The court below held that the police officer's request for the measurement of alcohol by the police officer was unlawful since the defendant was posted to the defendant and moved to the police station by the patrol vehicle in the situation that the defendant refused voluntary movement. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. On July 27, 2014, at around 09:50 on July 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) caused a traffic accident while driving a car at the Fanchip parking lot located in Gwangju Northern-gu; (b) went to the traffic survey office of the Gwangju Northern Police Station located in Gwangju Northern-gu at around 10:35 on the same day; and (c) went to the traffic survey office of the Gwangju Northern Police Station located in Gwangju Northern-gu at around 10:35 on the same day; and (d) there are reasonable grounds to recognize that “the Defendant driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and drinking on the face, making a red-light belt, etc.”; and (b) did not comply with the request of a police official for a alcohol test for a alcohol test for about 40 minutes from around 10:5 to around 11:35 of the same day without justifiable grounds.

3. It is reasonable to view that the legality of accompanying should be recognized only where it is clearly proven by objective circumstances that an investigator of the relevant legal doctrine knew that a suspect, prior to accompanying, was likely to refuse accompanying the suspect, or the suspect, who was aware that he/she could freely leave the accompanying place or could leave the accompanying place, etc., was accompanied by the suspect’s voluntary will.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6717, Jun. 30, 201). In order to force a driver to take a alcohol test, the procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the compulsory disposition of water-related thought is followed.