The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant responded to a request for repulmonary measurement over several occasions, and the demand for blood collection measurement was also made.

It seems that the failure of drinking measurement is due to the fact that the defendant suffered from the symptoms of normal respiratory difficulties or temporary errors of the measuring instrument.

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

2. "Where a police officer does not comply with a police officer's measurement" under Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act means that a person is under the influence of alcohol in light of the overall progress of the case.

a driver who has a reasonable reason to be appointed is objectively and objectively deemed to have no intention to respond to the measurement of drinking.

At this time, the measurement conducted to identify whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol should be understood as a measurement by the respiratory measuring instrument, namely, the method of objectively converting the degree of the driver's practice from the pulmonary test, and the voluntary cooperation of the driver is essential.

따라서 운전자가 음주 측정을 요구 받고 호흡 측정기에 숨을 내쉬는 시늉만 하는 등 형식적으로 음주 측정에 응하였을 뿐 경찰공무원의 거듭 된 요구에도 불구하고 호흡 측정기에 음주 측정 수치가 나타날 정도로 숨을 제대로 불어넣지 아니하는 등 음주 측정을 소극적으로 거부한 경우라면 소극적 거부행위가 일정 시간 계속적으로 반복되어 운전자의 측정 불응의 사가 객관적으로 명백하다 고 인정되는 때에 비로소 음주 측정 불응죄가 성립한다( 대법원 2000. 4. 21. 선고 99도 5210 판결, 대법원 2015. 12. 24. 선고 2013도 8481 판결 등 참조). 살피건대, 위 법리에 더하여 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고인은...