The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the police did not take a breath test even though the defendant expressed his/her intention to respond to the measurement three times, and there was a justifiable reason to refuse the police's request for a breath test since the defendant did not drive a breath test.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances, i., (i) the state of speech and behavior in relation to the defendant's situation at the time of detection, (ii) the driver's blood color "on the condition of the defendant at the time of detection," and (iii) the defendant's use of the alcohol measuring instrument was requested three times from September 22, 2015 to 20:27 on the same day, and the defendant refused to take a alcohol test, and accordingly, the court below prepared a report on detection of the driver (Evidence No. 22, 23 of the evidence record), (iv) the defendant's refusal to take a alcohol test on September 22, 2015; and (v) the defendant's refusal to take a alcohol test by taking into account the following facts: (v) the defendant's refusal to take a alcohol test from September 22, 2015 to 20:37 of the Road Traffic Act; and (v) the defendant's refusal to take a alcohol test method.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.