The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the wind of misunderstanding of facts requiring a driver's license, and compelling a police officer to catch a flabbbage of a criminal defendant, the criminal defendant resisted the above strong illegal excessive control by the police, and legitimately refused to measure drinking. The judgment of the court below which convicted the criminal defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (five million won of a fine) imposed on the Defendant is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it is acknowledged that the defendant refused a demand for a drinking test on several occasions without justifiable grounds, such as the defendant's voluntary driving at his/her own discretion, and the police officer's demand for a drinking test, such as the police officer's presentation of identification card at his/her own discretion and demand for a certificate of resident registration to the police officer who demanded a drinking test, without complying with due process, and the police officer's breathing the Defendant's breathm and flasing the Defendant's breath at the time of his/her drinking test. On the contrary of the defendant's assertion, a series of procedures for a request for a drinking test by a police officer for a drinking test was conducted under illegal arrest or coercion, such as taking the Defendant's breath, without complying with due process.

There is no evidence to deem that there was an illegal request for the measurement of drinking alcohol.

Therefore, the original judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case is just and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and there is a dependent on the defendant and an economic situation.