The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the pulmonary measurement, the Defendant: (a) demanded blood collection from a police officer; (b) but (c) rejected this demand unfairly.

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case solely on the result of drinking by the pulmonary measuring instrument, if the police officer's improper refusal to measure blood collection caused by blood collection.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a punishment of KRW 3 million) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A measurement conducted to identify whether a police officer is under the influence of alcohol pursuant to Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act on the part of his/her assertion of mistake means a measurement method, i.e., a measuring instrument which objectively convertss the degree of his/her driving from the body and objectively converts the degree of his/her driving.

On the other hand, under Article 44(3) of the Road Traffic Act, a driver may demand a police officer to take a measurement by blood collection method against the result of the pulmonary measuring instrument under Article 44(3) of the Road Traffic Act is limited to a time close to the point when the police officer seeks confirmation by presenting the result of the pulmon

Therefore, in a case where a driver raises an objection to the result of the pulmonary measurement after a considerable time from the above point of time without any justifiable reason and requests the measurement by the blood collection method, it cannot be deemed a justifiable demand. In this case, the police officer did not perform the measurement by the blood collection method.

Even if the result of the pulmonary measuring instrument alone proves the driving of alcohol (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do7121, Mar. 15, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2170, May 8, 2008). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the police officer’s refusal to collect blood is justifiable, and the Defendant’s person.