The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles: The police officer should have taken procedures corresponding to voluntary behavior such as informing the defendant that he can freely leave the investigative agency, but requested the defendant to take a drinking level without such procedures, so the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the lower judgment (a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle also argued that the defendant requested a drinking test and did not have a legitimate request for a drinking test while illegal arrest, and that the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that "the defendant was in a de facto arrest state at the time of the request for a drinking test, such as refusing to take a drinking test when the defendant requested a certain degree of request for a drinking test on his own while under the influence of alcohol and avoiding a disturbance without going through a police box after that request for a drinking test, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant was in a lawful arrest state at the time of the request for a drinking test, and that the defendant was guilty of the facts charged in this case. Further, just because the defendant is in a police box, it does not mean that "it is not necessary to take a procedure to request the defendant to voluntarily respond to the investigation by notifying that he is able to leave the police box freely or to take a lawful compulsory disposition under the Criminal Procedure Act, such as arrest, to force the defendant who

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below that the police officer's request for the measurement of drinking is legitimate and the defendant's failure to comply with this is established a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is justified.