The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has failed to comply with the police officer's drinking measurement without justifiable grounds.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s statement of “the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol” at the D cafeteria’s parking lot located adjacent to the D cafeteria in Scambling C on July 27, 2017.

의심할 만한 상당한 이유가 있어 호흡조사 방식에 의한 음주 측정을 요구 받았음에도 4 차례에 걸쳐 음주측정기에 바람을 부는 시늉만 하는 등으로 음주 측정에 응하지 아니하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's drinking test without any justifiable reason.

3. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant responded to the request by a police officer to take a breath measurement by inserting the breath measuring instrument; (b) the Defendant refused the first measurement by the police officer; and (c) the Defendant refused the first measurement.

5 minutes later than 5 minutes later

(3) The Defendant responded to the second and third demands for measurement in the subsequent order, but the police officer did not recognize the respiratory measuring instrument entirely because the Defendant obstructed the hole of the respiratory measuring instrument.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant notified the Defendant that he refused the second and third measurement, and the Defendant responded to the measurement by inserting the pulmonary measuring instrument three times in demand of the police officer for the measurement, and the Defendant appears to have taken the measurement by inserting the pulmonary measuring instrument. In full view of the fact that the sound, which was written at the time of each measurement, seems to have been sound to the outside, and the Defendant’s intent to take the measurement of drinking.