Even if the defendant was driving alcohol in light of the objective circumstances at the time of the request for alcohol measurement;

As long as there were reasonable grounds to recognize the defendant, the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act was established against the defendant who refused the request. However, on the contrary premise, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant was “driving” a motor vehicle in food;

As to the assertion that it should be seen, the lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, held that in the judgment (the conduct No. 5 or No. 20 on the side of the third party 5 or the same conduct) the Defendant was driving the vehicle with the intention of driving or driving the vehicle, based on the intention of driving or driving the vehicle.

such terms cannot be readily concluded.

In light of the records, if the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant moved the 'P' to 'D' to 'D') and there is an error of misconception of facts alleged by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument cannot be accepted.

B. That the Defendant actually did not “driving” a vehicle

Even if a person was objectively driving under drinking;

As long as there are reasonable grounds to recognize the establishment of a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (refluence of drinking), a motor vehicle, etc. is under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act.