The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (e.g., refusing to measure drinking), the Defendant was unable to take a respiratory test by a police officer upon a request for a measurement of drinking alcohol, and the Defendant did not accept a request from a police officer for the collection of blood due to the Defendant’s non-pulmonary result. As such, the Defendant did not refuse to measure drinking.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실 오인 주장에 관한 판단 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 나타나는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 1, 2, 3차 사고를 낸 후 도주한 피고인을 경찰관이 검거하였을 당시 피고인은 술냄새를 많이 풍기고 비틀거리며 혀가 꼬여 횡설수설하는 상태였던 점, 이에 경찰관이 인천 남동 경찰서에서 피고인의 음주여부를 확인하여 위하여 2015. 8. 7. 03:20부터 10분 간격으로 3회 이상 음주 측정을 요구하였음에도 그 때마다 음주 측정기에 숨을 내쉬는 시늉만 하는 등 음주 측정에 소극적이었던 점, 피고인 스스로도 검찰에서 신문 받을 당시 ‘ 조사 당시에 글을 읽어 보니 제가 너무 취해서 음주 측정 거부를 한 것 같습니다

In full view of the facts stated, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

The defendant has refused to take a drinking test in order to determine whether he/she has a reasonable ground to determine whether he/she is driving or not.

The decision is judged.

On the other hand, as long as the police officer's breath measurement fails to comply with the breath measurement, even if the defendant voluntarily requested the police officer to measure the breath alcohol by means of blood collection, or the police officer did not investigate the breath by means of blood collection, etc., such circumstance may affect the establishment of the crime of refusing