The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant responded to the police officer’s demand for a drinking test, but the pulmonary measuring instrument was not measured due to the error of machinery, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below which recognized the defendant's liability for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act(Refusal of measurement) has erred in mistake of facts.

2. Determination

가. 관련법리 호흡측정기에 의한 음주측정은 운전자가 호흡측정기에 숨을 세게 불어넣는 방식으로 행하여지는 것으로서 여기에는 운전자의 자발적인 협조가 필수적이라 할 것이므로, 운전자가 경찰공무원으로부터 음주측정을 요구받고 호흡측정기에 숨을 내쉬는 시늉만 하는 등 형식적으로 음주측정에 응하였을 뿐 경찰공무원의 거듭된 요구에도 불구하고 호흡측정기에 음주측정수치가 나타날 정도로 숨을 제대로 불어넣지 아니하였다면 이는 실질적으로 음주측정에 불응한 것과 다를 바 없다

As long as a driver fails to comply with a drinking test by a pulmonary measuring instrument without any justifiable reason, the crime of non-compliance with a drinking test is established, and the latter does not change merely because the police officer did not investigate whether he/she is drinking by means of blood collection, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do5210 delivered on April 21, 2000, etc.). B.

In this case, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's finding of guilty of the facts charged in this case is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts in the judgment below, as stated in the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1) On June 1, 2018, the Defendant is “C”.