The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The measurement of alcohol conducted on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a driver was a driving of a motor vehicle, even though there is no need for traffic safety and prevention of danger, has the meaning as an investigation procedure to collect evidence of the criminal act of a driving of a motor vehicle, which was already conducted. Since the provisions of the Road Traffic Act cannot serve as the basis for the compulsory disposition for the measurement of alcohol, the provisions of the Road Traffic Act shall follow the procedure of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the compulsory disposition under investigation in order to force the driver in question for the measurement of alcohol, and the compulsory performance conducted without disregarding such procedure constitutes illegal arrest

In a case where a drinking alcohol measurement request was made in such unlawful arrest, the illegal arrest for a drinking alcohol measurement request and the above request for a drinking alcohol measurement request are continued for the purpose of collecting evidence against the criminal act of driving a drinking alcohol, and it is not appropriate to evaluate the legitimacy of the request individually. Thus, the series of processes should be considered as an unlawful drinking measurement request, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that a driver was a driving a drinking alcohol.

Even if a police officer's duty to respond to a police officer's illegal request for measurement of alcohol, it is unfair to compel the driver to do so, so it cannot be punished as a violation of the Road Traffic Act concerning refusal of measurement of alcohol on the ground that the driver's refusal to comply with

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8404 Decided November 9, 2006. The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning. (1) 1) On June 22, 2013, when the Defendant 201:25, which was carrying the police box, 35 minutes or more from the time when she was driven under the influence of alcohol, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol near the police box. Thus, the Defendant 1, who was found himself, is a flagrant offender in the influence of alcohol.