Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not drive the instant vehicle at the time and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Defendant consistently complained from the investigation stage to the trial court. G’s legal statement contains H’s statement, so it can be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that it was made in a particularly reliable state. However, in this case, it cannot be viewed as the above case, and the witness F’s statement cannot be viewed as the evidence of conviction, and the witness F’s statement cannot be viewed as credibility. In light of the above, the lower court’s judgment that recognized the fact that the Defendant driven the instant vehicle does not have any other evidence, was erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

(2) In the process of moving from the Defendant’s detection point (the point where the instant vehicle stops) to the point where police officers control drinking, illegal arrest was conducted by force, not voluntary driving.

In addition, for about 40 minutes after arrival at the control point, there was an illegal arrest such as prohibiting from leaving the patrol car without the procedure of the emergency arrest or the arrest of the flagrant offender for 40 minutes.

The court below's decision which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of the measurement) on the premise that there was no procedural error in the process of the drinking control of this case, on the premise that the defendant's refusal to take a drinking level was not punished as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of the drinking level measurement) on the ground that the defendant's refusal to take a drinking level was made in the course of illegal arrest.

B. The lower court’s assertion of unfair sentencing (public prosecutor and Defendant) against the Defendant.