The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) at the time police officers entered the Defendant’s residence and demanded the Defendant to take a drinking test, the Defendant had already completed driving. Therefore, the Defendant could not be deemed a current offender for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “drinking driving”).

Nevertheless, police officers, disregarding the defendant's request for the presentation of warrant and the request for eviction and require the defendant to take a drinking test, and such demand for the measurement of drinking is an illegal forced investigation.

Even if the defendant is a current criminal of the crime of drinking alcohol driving, the defendant did not observe the so-called so-called "non-speak" principle at the time of forced investigation.

Therefore, since the defendant's request for the measurement of drinking alcohol is illegal, the defendant's refusal to comply with such request.

Even if there is no crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement of drinking), it is not established (hereinafter referred to as "crime of refusing to measure drinking").

On the other hand, the lower court determined that the aforementioned demand for measurement of drinking was legitimate, as long as police officers arrested the Defendant as an offender of the current crime of refusing to measure drinking on the ground that the crime of drinking alcohol driving and the crime of refusing to measure drinking are a series of acts that maintain the identity of a criminal act. However, the lower court erred in its judgment because the crime of drinking alcohol driving and the crime of refusing to measure drinking differs

2. The judgment of the court below and the defendant defense counsel also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal (Provided, That the fact that the principle is not observed and the fact that the current offender was arrested as the crime of refusing to measure drinking alone is not a legitimate demand for drinking, and the judgment below is judged below). Accordingly, the court below rejected the above assertion in detail in the "decision on the argument of the person related to the lawsuit".

The judgment of the court below is delivered.