The accused shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. On July 27, 2017, the Defendant in the factory room: (a) around 21:45, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s walked from F, in the D cafeteria’s seat attached to the D cafeteria located adjacent to the D cafeteria located in C at the C, and the Defendant’s witness G, who was at the scene, stated “the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol” and was unable to walk properly.

의심할 만한 상당한 이유가 있어 호흡조사 방식에 의한 음주 측정을 요구 받았음에도 4 차례에 걸쳐 음주측정기에 바람을 부는 시늉만 하는 등 음주 측정에 응하지 아니하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's drinking test without any justifiable reason.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction in a criminal trial is based on evidence of probative value, which can lead a judge to confluence that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no such proof, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, the conviction cannot be made against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006, etc.). In addition, the main purpose of Article 148-2(1)2(2) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Punishment clause”) is to promote traffic safety by indirectly compelling alcohol measurement, thereby facilitating the proof and punishment of drinking, not to punish the illegalness of the act of refusing measurement itself. Meanwhile, the crime of refusing to measure drinking under the penal provision is punished with the same legislative purport of Article 148-2(1)2(b) of the Road Traffic Act, taking into account the legislative purport of punishing the crime of refusing to comply with the request of the National Police Agency more than three times in the form of illegal driving or the crime of failing to comply with alcohol measurement.