The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) A police officer may refuse to voluntarily accompany the defendant at the time of voluntary accompanying the defendant to the misunderstanding of the fact;

Since notification was not made, the demand for voluntary accompanying and subsequent measurement of drinking is unlawful, and therefore, even if the defendant refuses to take a measurement of drinking, it is not a crime of refusal of measurement.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is rejected, as long as voluntary accompanying to the Defendant was duly made.

(1) A police officer F may refuse to voluntarily accompany a defendant before voluntary accompanying him/her, and leave the police officer F at any time even after voluntary accompanying.

“Notice to the effect that the notice was given.”

It is consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court of original instance.

② The Defendant did not inform the police officers E, who were dispatched to F with F at the time, that F could refuse voluntary accompanying, on the ground of the lower court’s oral statement by the police officers E.

However, even if examining the E’s statement as a whole, the F’s consistent statement cannot be rejected solely on the ground that it is difficult to view it as a content that is clearly contradictory to or contrary to F’s statement.

③ The Defendant, by itself, opened a door of the police vehicle and boarded the police vehicle, and at the request of the Defendant, the police officers moved the Defendant to the seat of the Defendant in the police lane.

3. The factual basis of the Defendant’s refusal to measure drinking after driving a vehicle while drinking alcohol itself is recognized as to the unfair argument of sentencing.

However, the crime of this case was already discovered by the Defendant on November 2, 2016.