The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the charge of violation of road traffic law among the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not have a duty to take measures in the event of a traffic accident as prescribed in Article 54 of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the Defendant did not cause the instant accident, which was destroyed by the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle with the front side of the left side of the damaged vehicle owned by the victim G (hereinafter “victim”).

Even if the accident of this case occurred

Even if this is limited to the minor degree of contact with the damaged vehicle, and the defendant was not aware at all of the fact that the accident of this case occurred at the time, so there is no obligation to take measures at the time of the occurrence of the accident.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the police officers dispatched after receiving a report from the victim G to the effect that they actually forced accompanying the Defendant, thereby constituting an illegal voluntary accompanying, and thus, the demand for the measurement of drinking alcohol conducted thereafter is also unlawful.

In addition, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol because he did not drink at all at the time.

Since there is no reasonable ground to determine the person who did not comply with a request for measurement of drinking, the requirements for the crime of refusing to measure drinking are not satisfied.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of the suspended sentence of eight months imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. 1) As to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures that were not taken after the accident), the Defendant asserted in the lower court that this part of the appeal is identical to the grounds for appeal.