A. misunderstanding of facts and the violation of the rules of evidence, the Defendant did not have been informed of the legal disadvantage resulting from the non-compliance with the drinking measurement at least three times at intervals of five minutes in advance, and the Defendant’s intent to refuse the drinking measurement at that time is objectively apparent

In addition, the report on detection of the driver was made on December 23, 2019, not on the day of the case, but on the day of the case, and the report on circumstantial statement of the driver of the driver was made by the police officer in advance as to the cancellation of the driver's license, but it was made by falsity, and the above evidence is not a evidence to acknowledge the guilty of the charges.

B. In light of the legal principles, the traffic control police officer should notify the defendant of the disadvantage caused by the non-compliance with the alcohol measurement three times at intervals of five minutes, but violated this, so so long as the drinking measurement procedure is illegal, the defendant's response to the drinking measurement but the defendant's attitude of refusal to take a passive measurement in a short manner of respiratory alone does not constitute a refusal to take the drinking measurement.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of fine) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. The circumstances cited by the court below concerning the misconception of facts, violation of the rules of evidence, and misapprehension of the legal principles, in particular, (1) the traffic control guidelines of the National Police Agency are only the internal guidelines of the National Police Agency, and cannot externally affect the general public or be bound by the court. Thus, even if a traffic control police officer violated such regulations as alleged by the defendant in the course of demanding a drinking measurement, it cannot be deemed unlawful if the control police officer violated such regulations as alleged by the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8075, Dec. 9, 2005; 2010Do1532, May 13, 2010; 201Do2883, May 13, 2011); and (2) the defendant acting as an agent by concealing the police officer’s several explanation on the methods of measuring drinking alcohol and the demand for a drinking measurement.