At the time of the instant case, the Defendant cannot be deemed to constitute “a case in which the intention to refuse measurement is objectively obvious”.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted in the lower court as the same in the trial, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, 1) found the Defendant's Lone Star Car as at the time of the instant case that the Defendant's Lone Star Car was driven by her next brash, etc., and reported to 112 that the driver's drinking operation of the said car is doubtful, and 2) the said car was operated for about 20 meters with the police officer, and her stop at a public stop until the police officer called. 3) The police officer stated at the investigative agency that "the police officer dispatched after receiving the above report did not have reached the above car until the above car arrives at a place where the above car arrives, and 4) the police officer dispatched after receiving the above report did not make the Defendant d's drinking-free driver's drinking-free driver's drinking-free driver's drinking-free driver's drinking-free driver's drinking-free driver's drinking-free driver's drinking-free driver's license, but the police officer did not make a request for drinking-free driver's drinking-free driver's drinking-free test.