A. The judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (recogncy measurement refusal) despite the fact that there was no legitimate request for the measurement of drinking water against the defendant on the date of the erroneous determination of facts, and that the defendant did not clearly express his intention to refuse the measurement

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it can be acknowledged that there was a considerable reason to suspect that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time, and the defendant expressed an obvious intention of refusal even though he was requested by the police to take a drinking test from the scene.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement) is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts alleged by the defendant.

B. Furthermore, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence by fully considering the favorable or unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant, and there is no special change in circumstances to change the sentencing after the lower judgment.

In addition, examining the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, it does not seem that the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.