The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of drinking), although the defendant did not drive a drinking alcohol, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Any police officer who finds it necessary to ensure the safety of traffic and prevent danger or any driver who drives a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol;

If there is a reasonable ground to determine a person, and it is necessary to confirm whether a driver has a drinking, it is impossible to confirm whether the driver has a drinking by means of an ex post facto measurement, unless it is clear that the driver is unable to confirm a drinking, the driver may demand a measurement of drinking pursuant to Article 44 (2) of the former Road Traffic Act, and if the driver refuses to comply with such demand, the crime of refusing to comply with the measurement of drinking under Article 148-2 subparagraph 2 of the same Act is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do1012, Mar. 29, 2012; 96Do3069, Jun. 13, 197). Therefore, the defendant's argument that the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act is not established since the defendant did not drive a drinking actually, is without merit.

B. When the defendant's assertion that he/she had been driving under drinking objectively at the time when the defendant refused to measure drinking;

인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 없었다는 취지로 선 해하더라도, 원심 및 당 심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인은 2014. 8. 28. 02:40 경 화성 시 동 탄 숲 속로 101 ( 능 동) 자연 앤 경 남아 너 스빌 아파트 앞 편도 2차로 도로변에 피고인의 프라이드 승용차의 시동을 켠 채 운전석에서 잠을 자고 있었던 점, ② 화성 동부 경찰서 D 지구대 경사 E는 “ 도로 한복판에 차를 세워 놓고 자고 있다.

"The same shall apply in the event of an accident" shall be called to the site after receiving a report and at the driver's seat as above.