The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act of this case by mistake of facts, the police officer may refuse to accompany the defendant at the time of voluntary commission of the defendant for the measurement of drinking.

Since the police officer did not notify that he may withdraw from or move to the place of accompanying at any time, such voluntary behavior is illegal. Thus, even if the police officer's refusal of a request to take a drinking test against the defendant due to such unlawful voluntary behavior, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of a drinking test).

B. In relation to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., refusal of measurement), the defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol.

C. The sentence of one-year imprisonment imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of mistake of facts on the ground that, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant was a person who is likely to cause harm to his/her or another person’s life, body, and property, and there was a considerable reason to believe that the act of the police officer on the earth was lawful as a protective measure under Article 4 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, on the ground that the act of the police officer on the earth was lawful, inasmuch as it constitutes a person who is likely to cause harm to his/her or another person’s life, body, and property, etc.

Examining the above judgment of the court below with a thorough comparison, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion as above and found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The judgment of the court below on the claim of mental disability.