The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

When taking into account the following circumstances, the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine), the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the facts.

A. At the time, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

The police officer had considerable reasons to view the defendant's family's consent and lawfully entered the defendant's residence and requested the defendant to measure drinking.

B. Although the Defendant requested a police officer to leave the police officer since then, at the time of the Defendant’s refusal to take one-time drinking test, the family members living together, such as the Defendant, persuade the Defendant, and request the police officer to leave the police officer. In the process, the police officer called the Defendant to take a drinking test.

(c)

The police officer's entry into his/her place of residence with the consent of the defendant's family, only one fact that there was a clear request for the withdrawal of the defendant cannot be viewed as a supplementary law for the police officer to measure the whole drinking.

(d)

The court below determined that if the defendant clearly demanded the withdrawal of the defendant, and the defendant's request for the measurement of drinking without forced investigation was a legitimate demand for the measurement of drinking alcohol, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate demand for the measurement.

However, this is possible without a warrant to demand a measurement of drinking, and even if the driver did not comply with the measurement of drinking.

In light of the fact that a warrant for measuring drinking after drinking is not required, it would lead to confusion between the "request for measuring drinking alcohol" and the "voluntary investigation after the demand for measuring drinking alcohol or the request for measuring drinking alcohol."

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) around 10:05 on November 15, 2015, at the Defendant’s house located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu D and 501; (b) from the police officer F of Seocho Police Station E of Seoul Seocho Police Station, face is red; and (c) the victim G of the traffic accident on the same day was driving alcohol by the Defendant.

was written to the extent that the articles were written.

(2).