The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (not guilty part of the lower judgment) is obvious that the Defendant did not comply with the demand for alcohol measurement at intervals of at least five minutes, as the Defendant did not comply with the demand for alcohol measurement at least three times.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (4 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The main purpose of Article 148-2 subparag. 2 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “the relevant legal doctrine”) is to promote traffic safety by indirectly compelling the measurement of drinking, and at the same time to facilitate the verification of drinking and the punishment, not to punish the illegality of the non-measurement itself. Meanwhile, the crime of refusing the measurement of drinking under the penal provision is subject to the same statutory punishment as the crime of driving with the highest level of illegality even at least three times during the principal driving, or the crime of refusing the measurement of drinking under the penal provision is subject to the same statutory punishment as the crime of driving with the highest level of illegality even at least 0.2% during blood, taking into account the legislative intent of Article 38(11) of the National Police Agency’s Guidelines for the Control of Transport Control of the National Police Agency, taking into account the legislative intent of the penal provision, etc., “A driver who refuses the measurement of drinking shall be clearly notified at least three times at intervals of 10 minutes, and a report on the result of measurement shall be prepared, despite the first request for the measurement.

In light of the fact that the term “in a case where a police officer does not comply with the measurement” referred to in the penal provision means that a person is under the influence of alcohol in light of the overall progress of the case.

When it is objectively evident that a driver who has a reasonable reason to be appointed has no intention to respond to the measurement of drinking, and the driver is only refusing the first measurement of police officers, and the refusal of measurement is only temporary, such as the driver's refusal to comply with the second measurement.