After that, the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, such as smelling from F of the police box of the Ansan Police Station E police station who was called out after receiving a report of 112 suspected of driving alcohol at the above Defendant’s house at the same time, and snicking on the face of the Defendant.

Due to reasonable grounds, F was demanded from F to respond to the measurement of alcohol by inserting approximately 30 minutes in a manner of putting the breath of alcohol in a so-called drinking measuring instrument.

Nevertheless, the Defendant avoided the foregoing so that he did not comply with a police officer’s request for alcohol testing without any justifiable reason by driving in person.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that police officers dispatched to the defendant's house at the time of the case requested a measurement of drinking at the defendant's house inside the defendant's house, and that police officers did not take measures for compulsory investigation such as urgent arrest of the defendant or arrest of flagrant offender at the time.

Therefore, in order to make a request for the measurement of drinking conducted by police officers within the defendant's dwelling lawful, police officers should have obtained the consent of the defendant, entered the defendant's dwelling, and have continued to reside in the above dwelling with the consent of the defendant, and have requested the measurement of drinking.

However, considering all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it was proved that police officers entered the dwelling with the consent of the defendant or the defendant's wife at the time of the case to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, even based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, police officers have been required to measure drinking at the inside of the defendant's house.