All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Although the Defendant could not apply the crime of refusing to take a drinking alcohol test, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ground that the Defendant, while making a legal assertion with the same purport that the Road Traffic Act was amended to the same effect, should not include the past record of the previous violation, the lower court withdrawn the said assertion on the second trial date.

Nevertheless, the arguments to the same effect are repeated in the trial.

Article 148-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, not Article 148-2 (2) of the same Act, shall apply to the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the law on the defendant.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant refused to measure alcohol as stated in the facts charged can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In full view of the grounds, contents, and purport of the amendment of Article 148-2(1) of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018), etc., it is reasonable to apply Article 148-2(1) of the amended Road Traffic Act to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles on different premise is without merit.

3. A favorable circumstance is that the defendant's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties is against the defendant, and that the family and branch members want to leave the defendant's favor.

However, there are many records that the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, and the crime is extremely poor in light of the circumstances before and after the crime of this case.