The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is in a state of 0.05% or more of alcohol concentration in blood at the time of the instant case by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles

The crime is not established because there is no reasonable reason to determine the person.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of refusing to comply with the alcohol alcohol measurement under Article 150 subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act is under the influence of alcohol.

A person with considerable reasons to be determined is established when he/she fails to comply with the measurement by a police officer pursuant to Article 44(2) of the same Act. In order to establish a crime of refusing to take the measurement of alcohol, the driver is not necessarily required to be in a state of not less than 0.05% of alcohol concentration among the blood transfusion of a person in charge of driving alcohol at the time of the request for measurement of alcohol, but is in a state of not less than 0.05% of alcohol concentration during blood.

(b) if there are reasonable grounds to determine the person, and further, in a state of under the influence of alcohol;

Whether there is a reasonable ground to determine a person should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the driver’s appearance attitude and behavior of driving at the time of the request for a drinking test (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5842). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, the Defendant concealed the damaged vehicle while driving under the influence of alcohol; when the police officer who received the report confirms the face of the Defendant, the Defendant was a red, smelling, snicking, and the Defendant was in an inaccurate, inaccurate, and unbrepted; even though the police officer called the Defendant as the driver of the victimized vehicle, the Defendant, even though the police officer called the Defendant as the driver of the victimized vehicle, called “the driver of the vehicle not driving the driver’s own,” was repeated, and the police officer called the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle, voluntarily accompanied the police officer, and then measured the drinking in the E zone.