A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Since it cannot be deemed that there was a reasonable ground to deem the Defendant to have driven alcohol at the time of the instant case by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the following grounds: (a) the lower court determined on the ground of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine that there were reasonable grounds to deem the Defendant to have driven a motor vehicle at the time of the instant case. The crime of non-driving of alcohol constitutes a case where a person with considerable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol did not comply with a police officer’s measurement; and (b) in light of the relevant provisions, when considering the objective circumstances at the time of the request for a sobling test, it is evident that it is difficult for a driver to confirm whether the driver was under the influence of alcohol and it is necessary to confirm whether the driver was under the influence of alcohol, a police officer may request a sobreath to take a sobling test; and (c) if the driver did not comply with the request, the crime of non-driving of alcohol is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do6026, Aug. 24, 2001).