The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test and did not refuse a drinking test.

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

2. Determination

A. In a case where a police officer finds it necessary to ensure the safety of traffic and prevent danger or where there is a considerable reason to recognize that a driver has driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and it is necessary to confirm whether a driver has driven the motor vehicle, he/she may request the driver to take a drinking test under Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act unless it is clear that the latter cannot confirm whether the driver has driven the motor vehicle. In a case where the driver refuses to comply with the request, there is a crime of non-compliance with the drinking measurement under Article 148-2(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do3069, Jun. 13, 1997; 201Do1012, Mar. 29, 2012). In light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant's appearance of drinking alcohol and his/her face is not concealed in the appearance of the motor vehicle.