The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant respondeds to a police officer’s request for a drinking test on several occasions, and there is no omission of a request for a drinking test.

2. Determination

가. 호흡측정기에 의한 음주측정은 운전자가 호흡측정기에 숨을 세게 불어넣는 방식으로 행하여지는 것으로서 여기에는 운전자의 자발적인 협조가 필수적이라 할 것이므로, 운전자가 경찰공무원으로부터 음주측정을 요구받고 호흡측정기에 숨을 내쉬는 시늉만 하는 등 형식적으로 음주측정에 응하였을 뿐 경찰공무원의 거듭된 요구에도 불구하고 호흡측정기에 음주측정수치가 나타날 정도로 숨을 제대로 불어넣지 아니하였다면 이는 실질적으로 음주측정에 불응한 것과 다를 바 없다

As long as a driver fails to comply with a pulmonary measuring instrument without any justifiable reason, the crime of non-compliance with the breath test is established, and the latter does not change because the police officer did not investigate whether the breath is drinking by means of blood collection, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do5210 delivered on April 21, 2000). B.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently prove that he did not comply with a police officer's demand for alcohol alcohol measurement as stated in the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below's conviction of the facts charged of this case is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① On May 28, 2018, police officers continuously demanded the Defendant to measure alcohol for about 30 minutes from May 28, 2018. In this regard, police officers stated that the Defendant failed to comply with the request for measurement of alcohol consistently from the investigation stage to the trial stage.

(2) Police officers.