The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the circumstances that were likely to cause an error in measurement due to mechanical error at the time of measuring the first and second alcohol consumption against the Defendant, and that the Defendant demanded the Defendant to change his/her place of business to his/her place of business when measuring the third alcohol consumption, but the police neglected the police, and determined that the Defendant was not willing to respond to the measurement of alcohol consumption.

It is difficult to see it.

B. In order to find out the whereabouts of a male-child room, the Defendant reported to 112, but the police officer voluntarily accompanied the Defendant and demanded the measurement of drinking.

However, since it cannot be confirmed that the requirements for voluntary accompanying to the defendant were met, the demand for the measurement of alcohol was made in an illegal arrest condition.

must be viewed.

Therefore, the request for the measurement of drinking alcohol in this case was illegal and rejected.

No one shall be punished as a crime of refusing to measure drinking alcohol.

(c)

The sentence of the lower court against the illegal defendant in sentencing (the amount of KRW 6 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, voluntary accompanying to the defendant was duly conducted with the consent of the defendant, and the defendant was driving the motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

Since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant refused to take a drinking test even if there are reasonable grounds to determine the person, the above assertion by the defendant is rejected.

1) According to the statement in the “112 Report Processing List,” the Defendant reported to the police that there was no male-child tool in the same car on November 30, 2016, and that there was another male-child seat, and reported the difference to the police.

E, a police officer who received a report, arrived at the location of the defendant around 3:10 on the same day, and the defendant is the above police officer.