The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles first respond to a request for a measurement of alcohol, but the control police officer continuously demanded a measurement of alcohol because the blood alcohol concentration level did not reach the level of alcohol content, and the defendant merely responded to the measurement of alcohol in a certain degree in the process of protesting against it and did not refuse the measurement of alcohol level.

Furthermore, a traffic control police officer violated the traffic control guidelines at the time of the measurement of drinking, and operated the measurement time to conceal it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act did not comply with the drinking alcohol measurement is erroneous and erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. In light of the circumstances leading to the crime of unfair sentencing, the fact that the defendant expressed his/her intention to comply with the measurement of drinking after the fact, and the difficult economic circumstances, the sentence of the court below (5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the traffic control guidelines merely are the internal guidelines of the National Police Agency to prevent the error of measurement results by a respiratory tester and to provide a drinking driver with an opportunity to measure accurate blood alcohol concentration. In a case where the traffic control police officer performed a drinking measurement according to the determination that the measure is appropriate in a specific situation, unless it is deemed that the objective justification is lost and it is considerably unreasonable, the traffic control guidelines of the National Police Agency in the process of demanding a drinking measurement by the traffic control police officer alone cannot be deemed unlawful.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1532, May 13, 2010). The evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, and the witness I, J’s each trial statement, drinking measurement image and photograph CD, and the fact-finding inquiry letter by the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency, recognized by the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency as follows, and the Defendant’s condition at the time of alcohol alcohol measurement as follows.