The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant's act of driving a motor vehicle from the second vehicle line to the first vehicle line is aimed at creating a smooth traffic situation, and the illegality is excluded as it constitutes an urgent escape.

In relation to the denial of drinking alcohol measurement, since the police demanded the measurement of drinking although there is no need for traffic safety and prevention of danger, it is an illegal demand for the measurement of drinking alcohol and therefore no crime of refusal of drinking alcohol measurement is established.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of order to attend a course) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Emergency escape under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of considerable reason to avoid present danger to his or another person's legal interests. Here, "act with considerable reason" is to constitute "act with considerable reason", first, act of escape shall be the only means to protect the legal interests faced with danger, second, the method to inflict the minor damage on the victim. Third, the profit preserved by the act of escape shall be more superior to the profit infringed upon. Fourth, act of escape must meet the requirements such as the necessity of appropriate means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006). Considering the following facts and circumstances duly adopted by the court below and the court of first instance, the act does not constitute an act with considerable reason to avoid the present danger to the defendant's own or any other person's legal interests, and thus, the allegation in this part of the defendant's assertion is justified.