The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant did not drink at all at the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, and the Defendant sought understanding from the victim of the traffic accident because of the lack of the Handphone, and immediately after the occurrence of the accident, left a taxi to K in the vicinity of the Defendant’s residence, which is the place using the Handphone, and the Defendant’s last place where the Handphone was used, but there was no Handphone on the part of the Defendant, but there was no Handphone and the occurrence of the traffic accident, and the Defendant purchased 2 knife a knife a knife and knife a knife a knife at the place where the accident occurred, and taken the knife a knife at the place where the accident occurred. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case,

(1) The act of violating the Road Traffic Act as provided in Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act is established in a case where a person who has considerable reason to be recognized as driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol fails to comply with a measurement by a police officer as provided in Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act.

I would like to say.

(2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (i.e., the Defendant: (a) drive a rocketing car around 19:15 on April 19, 2013; (b) the Defendant moved to the tax office in the direction of the tax office in the direction of the KBS broadcasting station; and (c) was a victim D (hereinafter “victim”) waiting to circumvent from the front direction of the Defendant to the lower court; and (b) the victim was the victim’s car going to the front direction after the traffic accident of the instant case from the police to the lower court.