The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. Legal principles have caused a misunderstanding of the defendant's drinking accident.

Even if the defendant had a new wall time at the time, and even if there was no fear of escape in the dwelling, it is invalid because the police officer's forced entry into the dwelling of the defendant and forced to conduct a drinking test, it is invalid in the execution procedure.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, G police officers of the Seocho Police Station F police box at around 01:50 on September 15, 2015, after receiving a report and dispatched at around 112 on September 15, 2015, and the Defendant demanded voluntary accompanying to the Defendant by finding out the parking stackers attached to the Defendant’s vehicle at the Defendant’s residence. The Defendant consented to the voluntary accompanying, and moved to the F police box at his/her discretion to the traffic survey of the Seocho Police Station in order to undergo an investigation into the contact accident, and the Defendant written his/her written consent for voluntary accompanying (23-25 pages of the evidence record) and signed by the Defendant, at the Seocho Police Station Traffic Investigation at the Seocho Police Station, written a written confirmation of alcohol measurement, a driver’s blood collection confirmation certificate (hereinafter “not required to collect blood”), and the facts that “the driver’s opinion or driver’s column” in the Jeju Police Station’s report and signed it as evidence 196(216).

According to the above facts, the defendant can be aware that he was accompanied by the F police box and the Seocho Police Station with his own consent, so the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. As to the judgment of the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant’s previous convictions of the same kind, who was sentenced to a fine due to drinking driving, are two times or more, and the Defendant’s erroneous assertions that do not meet the common sense as above, are seriously against his or her own

The defendant's age, age, etc. is difficult to see.