The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, who violated the traffic control guidelines and the misapprehension of legal principles, was indicted on the ground that he was requested to take three-minutes of drinking by a traffic control police officer to take three-minutes of drinking, and then failed to comply with the drinking measurement, but the above demand for drinking measurement was in violation of the traffic control guidelines, and the above police officer attempted to measure the drinking by drinking rather than a drinking-free measuring instrument, and there is procedural error in the process.

The illegal arrest of the defendant in the act of committing a crime is illegal in a situation where it is difficult to arrest the defendant as a flagrant offender in a situation where it is difficult to hold him/her as a drunk driving, even though he/she has drinking the preceding drinking time.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the arrest procedure of flagrant offenders and by misapprehending the legal principles.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, community service, 120 hours of probation, 40 hours of compliance driving) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

The measurement conducted in order to identify whether a police officer under Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act is under the influence of a driver under the relevant legal principles concerning the claim of violation of the traffic control guidelines by the National Police Agency shall be understood as the measurement method, namely, the method of objectively converting the degree of the taking from the taking of the alcohol to the objectively converted the degree of the taking

(See Supreme Court Decisions 9Do5377 delivered on March 10, 200 and 2008Do2170 delivered on May 8, 2008, etc.). However, a police officer has a certain level of discretion as to the method of measurement and the frequency of measurement to the extent necessary to measure whether to drink or the degree of drinking (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do220 delivered on April 28, 1992). Thus, in order to confirm whether to drink or the degree of drinking by a driver, a police officer requires a driver to put in drinking while presenting a drinking measuring instrument in front of the driver.