The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of refusing to comply with the measurement of drinking under Article 148-2 (2) of the Road Traffic Act is under the influence of alcohol.

A person with reasonable grounds for appointment shall be established when he/she fails to comply with the measurement by a police officer under Article 44 (2) of the same Act.

Therefore, in order to establish a crime of non-performance of alcohol measurement, it is not required that the driver at the time of the request for the measurement of alcohol is in a state above the alcohol level in the breath blood deposit, which is punished as a crime of drinking; and

reasonable grounds to determine a person shall exist.

B. A state of undertoxicatedness;

Whether there is a reasonable ground to determine the person’s appearance must be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as driving behavior, etc., of individual drivers at the time of the request for measurement of drinking (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6632, Jan. 24, 2003, etc.). The lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.