The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The police officer’s act of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles (related to the refusal of measurement of drinking) committed by the Defendant to the police box does not meet the requirements of voluntary accompanying, and thus does not meet the requirements for arrest of a flagrant offender, and thus illegal arrest. The evidence collected under illegal arrest is inadmissible in accordance with the rules of exclusion of illegally collected evidence, and the demand for measurement of drinking is also illegal. Thus, the Defendant’s act of failing to comply with such requirements

In addition, at the time of the completion of the operation, the defendant dices alcohol in the house after the completion of the operation, and was driving at the time of the operation.

Although there is no reasonable reason to determine the person, it is not the case of refusal to take the measurement of drinking, so it is not the case of refusal to take the measurement of drinking.

B. After hearing the prosecutor’s opinions, the lower court clearly violated Article 303 of the Criminal Procedure Act by hearing the prosecutor’s opinions and the defendant’s last statement, and then hearing the prosecutor’s punishment.

This is an obvious violation of the law concerning litigation procedures in a judgment, and ultimately, it constitutes a violation of the law that affected the judgment of the court below (Article 361-5 Item 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

(c)

The sentence of the court below's unfair sentencing (one year of suspended sentence, 3 years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of lecture attendance order, 160 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. The ex officio judgment prosecutor changed the facts charged No. 2 (1) 1 to 18:40 to '18:50 to '18:40 to '.', the 6:7 Pursuant to the following: ". there are reasonable grounds", the prosecutor applied for an amendment to the indictment by adding "at the Hamba Police Station Hemba in the Gyeonggi-siO from 18:50 to 19:20 on the same day," and the judgment of the court below is no more than the same.