A. The Defendant is under the influence of alcohol at the time of receiving a request from a police officer for a measurement of drinking.

In the absence of objective circumstances to determine a person, there was no opportunity for the police officer to be placed in his/her place of parking, and the police officer was not given a opportunity to be placed in his/her place of parking, and the police officer was requested to take a drinking test, and the police officer was forced to take a drinking test for about 2 minutes and 46 seconds per time, and continued to talk with the police officer, and did not comply with a drinking test, the lower court found the fact by recognizing the different facts.

B. In light of the legal principles, a police officer repeated the Defendant’s legitimate demand for drinking measurement, disregarding the Defendant’s response to drinking again, and the Defendant’s intention to refuse measurement is objectively apparent.

In addition, the procedure for the measurement of drinking to the defendant is not possible, and it is not possible to give the defendant an opportunity to be able to suffer from water before the respiratory examination, and it is not notified of the measurement of drinking caused by blood collection.

Therefore, even if the defendant did not comply with the drinking measurement, it does not constitute the rejection of the drinking alcohol measurement under the Road Traffic Act.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the records of this case, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) as stated in its reasoning, the defendant appeared in a drinking drinking condition presented by police officers at the time of regulating the defendant; (b) the defendant was demanded to undergo a drinking test at the vehicle; (c) the snow level at the time was red, smelling, and snicking; (d) the defendant was in a state where he was in an inaccurate and inaccurate state of drinking; and (e) the defendant was working for the defendant to receive a drinking water from the first police officer; and (e) he was in a state of drinking at the time; and (e) the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

There was a considerable reason to determine the person.