The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that police officers called up to investigate the driving of the Defendant’s drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case demanded the Defendant to walk out of the phone, but they enter the Defendant’s residence in order to witness the Defendant’s refusal of this request and to check what he would see.

In addition, one defendant's wife opened a door to enter the residence of the defendant.

The request for the measurement of drinking to the defendant was made through the defendant's windowless window outside the defendant's house.

The defendant's voluntary accompanying was based on the defendant's voluntary will.

Therefore, even though the Defendant’s demand for the measurement of drinking alcohol was based on the lawful procedure, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. After recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court found that the Defendant refused to comply with a police officer’s demand for drinking alcohol measurement on the following grounds:

Even if the defendant could not be punished as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (refluence of drinking).

(1) The police officers entered the Defendant’s residence without the Defendant’s consent without the Defendant’s consent, and without the Defendant’s consent, demanded the Defendant to take a drinking test (1 to 3rd). Since the Defendant’s request for a drinking test does not seem to constitute an exception to the warrant requirement under Article 216 of the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., the Defendant’s request for a drinking test was procedurally lawful.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) Although the defendant voluntarily expressed his intention to accompany the police officer, the voluntary will of the defendant alone is made.