The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is cited as the main text.

The Defendant did not refuse the drinking measurement.

The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was in a state where he did not sleep up for 3 days as a monetary problem and took the body, and the Defendant responded to the measurement of drinking, but due to these circumstances, the drinking level was not measured. (b) The punishment of the lower court which was unfair in sentencing (5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The phrase “cases of failing to comply with a police officer’s measurement” under Article 148-2 subparag. 2 of the Road Traffic Act means under the influence of alcohol in light of the overall progress of the case.

a driver who has a reasonable reason to be appointed is objectively and objectively deemed to have no intention to respond to the measurement of drinking.

At this time, the measurement conducted to identify whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol should be understood as a measurement conducted by a respiratory measuring instrument which objectively converts the degree of the main body from the pulmonary test, i.e., a driver's voluntary cooperation.

따라서 운전자가 음주 측정을 요구 받고 호흡 측정기에 숨을 내쉬는 시늉만 하는 등 형식적으로 음주 측정에 응하였을 뿐, 경찰공무원의 거듭 된 요구에도 불구하고 호흡 측정기에 음주 측정 수치가 나타날 정도로 숨을 제대로 불어넣지 아니하는 등 음주 측정을 소극적으로 거부한 경우라면, 소극적 거부행위가 일정 시간 계속적으로 반복되어 운전자의 측정 불응 의사가 객관적으로 명백하다 고 인정되는 때에 비로소 음주 측정 불응죄가 성립한다( 대법원 2000. 4. 21. 선고 99도 5210 판결, 2015. 12. 24. 선고 2013도 8481 판결 등 참조). 나. 구체적 판단 위 법리에 비추어 보건대, 원심이...