The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, after the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, has reached an actual agreement with the victim, such as the settlement of insurance, etc., after leaving the scene, was engaged in drinking in the indoor packing machine located in his wife, and was never drunk at the time of driving the vehicle prior to the accident.

Therefore, since it cannot be deemed that there was a considerable reason to recognize that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, the defendant does not constitute a crime of non-compliance with the measurement of alcohol.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of non-compliance with the measurement of alcohol is established when a person who has a reasonable ground to be recognized as driving under the influence of alcohol fails to comply with the measurement by a police officer under Article 44(2) of the same Act. In order to establish the crime of non-compliance with the measurement of alcohol, the crime of non-compliance with the measurement of alcohol does not necessarily require the driver to be in the state above 0.05% of blood alcohol level, and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the driver is in a state above 0.05% of blood alcohol level at the time of the request for the measurement of alcohol level. Furthermore, the determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the person is under the influence of alcohol should be made after considering the objective circumstances such as his external appearance, attitudes, and driving behavior at the time of the request for a measurement of alcohol level (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4789, Oct. 15, 2004). 2)