The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the police officer G and I’s statement, following the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s instant case’s ground to the point of appeal, the Defendant attempted not to have the police box first at the police station, but G et al. attempted to give tobacco to the Defendant.

As such, there is no fact that the defendant was on board the patrol vehicle, G et al., and tried to take the defendant under guard or detain the defendant.

In addition, at the time of detection of the defendant, the security guard who had the defendant and the trial room set up at the time of being exposed is resisting to the issue of whether the security guard is not to proceed.

In light of the statement, at the time, the defendant had the ability to decide whether to voluntarily accompany the defendant.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, voluntary accompanying of the defendant to the defendant is lawful based on the defendant's voluntary will, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the request for the measurement of drinking thereafter is legitimate.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. Determination:

A. On August 2, 2016, the Defendant: (a) driven a car with drinking alcohol around 18:40 on the entrance of the said D apartment to the entrance of the said D apartment from the entrance of the said D apartment to the front parking lot of the said 102 apartment; (b) observed this, the Defendant was accompanied by the police officer who received a report at the seat of the said security guard and the front parking lot, and was dispatched to the police officer of the Gyeongnam-nam Police Station, along with the police officer called to the said police box; (c) around 19:24 on the same day, the Defendant driven a car while under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling the alcohol by the police officer G who belongs to the said police box, and snicking the fright.

There is a reasonable reason to determine a person, and even if he/she was requested to respond to the measurement of drinking on three occasions from around 19:24, around 19:34, and around 20 minutes until around 19:45 on the same day, he/she did not comply with the police officer's request for the measurement of drinking without good cause.

B. The lower court’s judgment is based on the records.