The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of the misapprehension of the legal principle was requested to measure alcohol while illegally arrested, and evidence produced in such a state is inadmissible.

Therefore, the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a request for a measurement of drinking alcohol was made under an illegal arrest in a state of determination of misapprehension of the legal principles, the illegal arrest for the request for a measurement of drinking alcohol and the request for a measurement of drinking alcohol is made consecutively for the purpose of collecting evidence against the criminal act of driving alcohol, and it is not appropriate to individually evaluate the legitimacy of the request, and therefore, the request for a measurement of drinking alcohol is deemed to have been made under the overall overall process, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that

Even if a police officer's duty to comply with a police officer's illegal request for measurement of drinking, it is unfair to compel the driver to comply with such request, so it cannot be punished as a violation of the Road Traffic Act concerning refusal of measurement of drinking.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1162 Decided December 13, 2012). The following circumstances revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined by the health team, the lower court, and the lower court. In other words, the Defendant asserted the following: (a) the Defendant: (b) on November 12, 2013, when driving a vehicle after drinking alcohol; (c) the other vehicle driver, etc. reported the Defendant by drinking alcohol; (d) the other vehicle driver, etc. was dispatched to the police officer; (c) the Defendant was transferred to the chief of the police officer; and (d) the Defendant was snicking and snicking the Defendant; and (d) the police officer was the police officer.