The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The closing function of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts is less than normal, and the Defendant was not able to take a drinking test due to the absence of meals at that time, and it does not refuse to take a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① At the time of the instant case, the Defendant attempted to measure alcohol consumption.

G H H HH regularly checked the alcohol measuring machine and operated normally, and notified the defendant of the repulmonary method prior to his/her request for the measurement of alcohol.

However, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant did not take a drinking test even if a demand for a drinking test has been made four times because he/she was breath of the breath or breath of the breath.”

The above witness's statement is concrete and natural, thereby recognizing credibility, and the following are consistent with the excessive main contents of the evidence of each paragraph.

② The Defendant’s closed function constitutes approximately KRW 75.3% of normal persons (Evidence No. 64-65 of the evidence record), despite being recognized, a doctor H prepared a report (Evidence No. 108 of the evidence record) to the effect that it does not interfere with daily life and that it is possible to sufficiently measure drinking (Evidence No. 108 of the evidence record) and submitted it to the investigative agency.

In addition, in the light of Korea's Sovereign photographs (No. 48-52 of evidence records), the defendant is under the influence of alcohol at the time of crackdown.