The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The H police officer argued that the blood alcohol concentration level was 0.07%.

In spite of the fact that drinking was measured because it was not refused to measure drinking, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact and finding the defendant guilty.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered against the defendant (the penalty amounting to 5,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실 오인 주장에 대한 판단 살피건대 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인이 음주측정기에 부는 시늉만 했을 뿐 숨을 제대로 불어넣지 않은 사실을 인정할 수 있고 피고인 주장과 같이 0.07% 의 수치가 측정된 사실을 인정할 자료가 없으므로 피고 인의 위 사실 오인 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

B. It is acknowledged that the Defendant’s determination of the illegal assertion of sentencing was limited to driving at a very short distance from which an agent intended to easily detect a vehicle while driving a substitute driver who is trying not to drive under drinking, and the detection of the vehicle by drinking led to the instant crime, and there are some circumstances to be taken into account in the motive for the instant crime; the Defendant does not have any particular income except for public service; and the Defendant’s health condition is not good upon receiving a light of the presidential cancer operation in 2013.

However, it is necessary to respect the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the court below because new sentencing data have not been submitted at the court of original instance. Although the defendant had been punished once due to drinking alcohol driving, he gets a short distance after drinking, but refused to drive and to measure drinking, the punishment sentenced by the court below is the lowest of the statutory punishment for the crime of refusing to measure drinking alcohol consumption, the defendant denies driving at the court of original instance, and further, the witness conforms to the defendant's assertion.