A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., refusal of measurement)) cannot be ruled out that the police officer in charge of the traffic control puts the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the bla

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (amounting to 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “the Defendant’s argument” in the judgment of the court below on the ground for appeal of this case. In addition, the court below’s aforementioned judgment was examined in detail with the record and examined by the court below and the court below. In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the buffer with which the buffer system was its buffer system was covered, and not only was the bread with the documents, but also it appears that the bread with the documents were not directly affected by the heat of the bracks, and ② the hours during which the bracks with the drinking measuring instrument of this case were raised on the bracks, and ③ the control police officer did not request 1 minute 20 seconds before and after the breadthm measurement of the drinking measuring instrument of this case, the Defendant did not indicate that the breadr was in short of the breath rate before and after the breath measurement.”