The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The defendant was not informed of the principle that was not disturbed at the time when he was arrested in the act of drinking-driving, and thus, the arrest of the defendant is illegal, and even if he did not comply with the demand for measurement of drinking conducted in an illegal arrest, it shall not be punished as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of Drinking Measures). 2) The defendant expressed that he did not comply with the demand of the police officer for measurement of drinking alcohol level 1 and 2. However, even though the defendant expressed his intention to comply with measurement after having come to rest in the toilet, the police officer neglected it and the defendant

As such, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have refused a drinking test because he/she had an intention to comply with the third demand for a drinking test.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail under the title of “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion.” 2) According to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, including the witness F’s legal statement, as well as each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant cannot carry out construction due to a vehicle owned by the Defendant that was parked in the Jeju-si Parking Lot. Accordingly, the Defendant was called for transfer of a vehicle and moved to the said place around June 30, 2015; ② the Defendant moved the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the said place at approximately two meters and moved to the construction site; ② the Defendant reported that the Defendant was a drinking driver, and ③ the Defendant was called to the police at the time of mobilization.