Nevertheless, the court below found the charge of this case not guilty on the premise that the request for the measurement of drinking alcohol was made in an unlawful manner. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, upon receiving a report at the time of the instant case, did not notify the Defendant that F, the Defendant, and the Defendant could freely leave from the place of accompanying at any time during the course of accompanying, and that the Defendant was required to take a drinking test from the police officer at intervals of ten minutes from March 12, 2015, on the ground that the Defendant arrived at D Zone around 01:27 to 01:57 on March 12, 2015, and received a demand for a drinking test from the police officer at intervals of ten minutes. However, the lower court was justifiable to the effect that “not until before the measure of drinking is complied with,” from E from the defect E, etc. about to be out of the Zone, etc., and that the Defendant “in the course of the D Zone, it is necessary to d’s inside and outside.”

Then, according to the above facts, police officers did not notify the defendant that he would leave the district at any time and could not leave the district at any time, and they prevented the defendant from freely leaving the district by demanding a measurement of drinking after leaving the district. Thus, this constitutes an illegal arrest. The request for measurement of drinking alcohol in this case, which was made by the defendant illegally with his influence, constitutes an illegal demand for measurement of drinking, and thus cannot be punished as a violation of the Road Traffic Act concerning the refusal of measurement of drinking alcohol, and thus, the facts charged in this case was judged not guilty.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is closely examined in light of the records.