The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal of this case is as follows: (a) at the time of the crackdown on drinking driving of this case, a police officer did not comply with the first measurement; (b) but did not notify the Defendant that the Defendant did not respond to the demand for measurement more than twice and did not respond to the demand for measurement, and (c) did not comply with the Defendant’s demand for re-measurement; and (d) the Defendant’s act did not constitute a crime of refusal of drinking alcohol measurement; (b) the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant was driving a vehicle and driving the vehicle on four minutes at intervals of about 50 minutes on December 21, 2012, i.e.,: (a) the Defendant appeared on the road front of the Cheong-ri, Cheong-ri, Cheong-ri, Cheong-ri, Cheong-ri, in front of the Kim Jong-ri, on December 21, 2012; (b) the police officer discovered the police officer who is under drinking control at the front end and left the three-lane; (c) the police officer discovered the Defendant’s vehicle and discovered the Defendant’s face while driving the vehicle; and (d) requested the Defendant to take a drinking test at intervals of about 50 minutes on the spot; (d) the police officer appeared in this court as a witness; and (e) the Defendant refused to arrest and seal the Defendant as a criminal suspect and notified the Defendant of this principle without any justifiable reason.