The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, first, since the crime of this case was committed in the state of being taken by the defendant, and the taxi driver informed the police officer of the fact that the defendant intended to drive under the influence of alcohol, the crime of this case was committed by the so-called naval investigation caused by neglecting the fact even though the police officer was clearly aware that the defendant intended to drive under the influence of alcohol, as well as the crime caused by neglecting it, and since the enforcement police officer violated the police officer's duty to prevent the criminal act of drinking alcohol in advance,

둘째, 교통 단속 처리지침 제 29조의 1 제 2 항, 같은 지침 [ 별표 3]에 의하면, 음주 측정기 없이 주 취 운전 의심 자를 적발한 경우 임의 동행이 아닌 적발현장에서 음주 측정 하는 것을 원칙으로 하고 대상자에게 적발현장에서 대기할 것을 요구하여야 함에도 단속 경찰관들은 피고인을 파출소로 임의 동행하여 음주 측정을 하였고, 같은 지침 제 30조에 의하면, 음주 측정 전에 피 측정자의 입안 잔류 알코올을 헹궈 낼 수 있게 음용수 200㎖( 종이 컵 한 컵 )를 제공하여야 함에도 단속 경찰관들은 피고인에게 생수가 아닌 옥수수 수염 차와 헛개차를 제공하였다.

In addition, according to Article 51 of the Regulations on Duties of Police Officers for the Protection of Human Rights, a police officer must notify the other party of his/her right to refuse to accompany at any time, and in the case of voluntary accompanying, a police officer under the attached Form 4 of the same Rule has prepared a written consent of voluntary accompanying, but the controlling police officer only notified the defendant of voluntary accompanying, and did not demand voluntary accompanying by the method of notifying the right to refuse accompanying, etc., and did not prepare a written consent of voluntary accompanying as stipulated in the above rules of duty.

Therefore, it is based on the illegal voluntary accompanying and the measurement of drinking.