A. The Defendant, on the day of the instant case, did not have any fact of driving under the influence of alcohol on the day of the instant case, and was requested by a police officer to take a alcohol level and there was no considerable reason to suspect that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, the Defendant’s refusal to take a alcohol level does not constitute a

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of refusing to measure a alcohol under Article 148-2 subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act is established when a person who has reasonable grounds to recognize that a person is under the influence of alcohol has failed to comply with a police officer's measurement under Article 44 (2) of the same Act. A drinking measurement conducted solely on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a person has been driving under the influence of alcohol even though traffic safety and prevention of danger does not need to be conducted, has meaning as an investigation procedure for collecting evidence for the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol already conducted. Thus, in order to make the driver under the influence of alcohol measurement as above, the act of compelling the driver under the control of the Criminal Procedure Act constitutes an illegal arrest, and the act of compelling the driver under the influence of alcohol measurement without disregarding the above procedure constitutes an illegal arrest. The illegal arrest for the demand for a alcohol measurement and the request for a alcohol measurement are continuous to collect evidence for the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol, and an individual evaluation of the legitimacy of the demand for a alcohol measurement is not appropriate as a whole.