The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant has driven a vehicle in a drunken condition.

Even if not,

In light of the objective circumstances at the time of the request for the measurement of alcohol, the defendant was driving alcohol.

As long as there are reasonable grounds to recognize such demand, it is reasonable to view that the defendant who refused such demand constitutes a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (refluence of drinking).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2. The lower court, based on the detailed circumstances stated in the “2. Judgment” item of the judgment, found that the Defendant was proven to the extent that it was reasonable doubt that the Defendant driven the said car at the time when the car driven by the Prosecutor conflicts with the taxi.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the instant facts charged was acquitted.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just.

In this regard, in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, a driver was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

Any person who is required to comply with a request by a police officer for a measurement on drinking on the ground that there is a reasonable ground to determine a person is the "driver" of the relevant motor vehicle, and when he is not the driver of the relevant motor vehicle, he/she is in violation of the provisions of prohibition on driving under the influence of alcohol

There is no room for seeing that it constitutes a case of failing to comply with a police officer's request for alcohol testing under Article 44 (2) of the same Act, and even if there is no evidence to prove the driving of a motor vehicle, it does not constitute a crime of refusing to comply with a request for alcohol testing.