A. It did not refuse the measurement with the intention of not complying with the measurement of misunderstanding of facts, but did not put the part of the measuring instrument into a continuous drinking measuring instrument over several times, but the numerical value did not go out.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order 80 hours, and the lecture attendance order 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact, in particular, the photograph refusing measurement, and the video images of video CDs, it is recognized that the defendant did not comply with the police officer's measurement by preventing the defendant from being able to analyze the lack of samples because he did not sufficiently breathely in a drinking measuring instrument. Thus, the defendant's allegation of mistake is rejected.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant appears to have violated the instant crime in general, the Defendant appears to have committed an act of assaulting a police officer who was under the influence of alcohol due to the demand for a measurement of alcohol, and the Defendant’s use of assault against the police officer is relatively minor, etc., which are favorable to the Defendant.

The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, such as that the defendant's refusal to take the measurement of the police officer's drinking, and that the responsibility for the crime is not easy to walked by the victim police officer's bucks, that the defendant stops the vehicle at the middle of the road, and that the distance of driving the vehicle is about 4 km, that the defendant's abusive behavior is also about 4 km, that the defendant's abusive behavior is arrested in the act of committing the crime, and that the defendant's abusive behavior after the arrest and resistance, and that the defendant seems to have avoided the disturbance, such as 10 times of criminal records, including the three times of punishment due to drinking and non-exclusive driving.

The above circumstances and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime.