The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the demand for measurement due to the so-called the method of the measurement under Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act, and thus it can be sufficiently evaluated that the defendant refused the measurement of drinking. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged in the instant case on a different premise.

(2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and the Defendant asserted that there was a misunderstanding of facts in the trial before remanding the case on the ground of appeal, but the Defendant withdrawn the assertion of mistake in fact in the trial after remanding the case.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. A measurement conducted by a police officer to identify whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol pursuant to Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act shall be understood as a measurement conducted by a drinking measuring instrument, i.e., method of objectively converting the degree of the driver’s drinking from the respiratory and objectively converting the degree of the driver’s drinking (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do5377, Mar. 10, 200; 2008Do2170, May 8, 2008). However, a police officer has a certain level of discretion to measure the degree of drinking and the degree of the driver’s drinking and the degree of the driver’s drinking, to the extent necessary (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do220, Apr. 28, 192). Thus, a police officer is closely related to the method of measuring the driver’s drinking in order to verify whether the driver’s drinking or the degree of his drinking.

It is reasonable to view it.

B. Meanwhile, it refers to Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act.