H’s legal statement in the lower court is insufficient to recognize the facts charged, and there is no objective evidence such as recording, video, and photograph as to the fact that the Defendant did not comply with the demand for the measurement of alcohol without any justifiable reason. In addition, the CCTV also contains the conflict between the Defendant and the Defendant by sending the victim vehicle to the scene of the collision or by the police officer, and there is no way to find the Defendant’s demand for the measurement of alcohol or refusal thereof.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of violating the Road Traffic Act due to the refusal of drinking alcohol measurement among the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant was not guilty as in the grounds of appeal. The lower court stated that the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, namely, ① the witness H made a detailed statement in the court of the lower court that “the Defendant confirmed whether the Defendant was drinking by drinking alcohol, and demanded a drinking test several times,” ② the Defendant was locked in the vehicle at the time when the police officers discovered the Defendant, ② the Defendant was at the time of police officers’ request for a drinking test, made a statement on the name and resident registration number of the J, who is the birth of the Defendant, in the report on the 112-case report processing sheet, and ③ the reporter reported that “the vehicle has a vehicle that is left in the seat of the Defendant.” As such, there is considerable reason to recognize that the Defendant was driving alcohol.