The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even though he did not refuse the measurement of drinking due to the pulmonary measuring instrument, as a result of the Defendant’s failure to put a hidden level to the extent that drinking measurements may occur due to a physical disorder, etc., the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order 120 hours, the compliance driving lecture 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “cases of failing to comply with the police officer’s measurement” as referred to in Article 148-2 subparag. 2 of the Road Traffic Act concerning the assertion of mistake of facts means 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). 원심 및 당 심이 적법하게 채택조사한...