A. The Defendant, at the request of a crackdown police officer, responded to a drinking measurement by inserting the whole breath in a drinking measuring instrument, and accordingly, refused to measure the drinking.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. Although it is necessary for a police officer to notify the Defendant of the measurement of blood sampling by misunderstanding the legal principles, the police officer did so.

It is difficult to see that the defendant who is deprived of the opportunity to take a drinking test due to blood sampling shall not be punished as a refusal to take a drinking test.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of four million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, G, a crackdown police officer, demanded that the Defendant comply with the measurement of drinking alcohol by inserting the breath to the breath of alcohol by viewing the breath as the breath as the breath, such as making a large amount of smelling, red, and rhyming the horses, etc.

However, the defendant does not comply with the measurement.

하여 음주 측정거부로 처벌될 수 있음을 고지하였고, 이에 피고인이 입으로 음주측정기의 불대를 물기는 하였으나 숨을 들어 마시고 불지는 않는 방식으로 부는 시늉만 하였다 ”라고 하여 피고인의 행위에 대해 구체적으로 진술하고 있는 점, ② 피고인은 2016. 6. 14. 21:30 경까지 저녁 식사를 하면서 맥주 2 잔 정도를 마셨음을 인정하고 있는데 피고인이 마신 술의 양과 음주 종료 시점과 최초 음주 측정을 요구 받은 시간 (22 :18 경) 과의 간격, “ 음주 감지기에 음주반응( 적 색등) 이 나와 피고인에 대해 음주측정기로 음주 측정을 하게 된 것인데, 통상 음주 감지기에 음주반응이 나오면 음주측정기의 수치는 반드시 올라가게 되어 있으므로 피고인이 정상적으로 음주 측정에...