The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of reasons for appeal: A defendant who misleads the defendant as to the facts, drives under the influence of alcohol;

The police officer did not comply with the police officer's request for measurement of drinking without good cause.

However, as the court below rendered not guilty of the facts charged of this case, it erred by misunderstanding facts in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant was parked in the front side of the Defendant’s car while driving a DNA observer car under the influence of alcohol on the 13 SK K K K K hub road south on July 21, 2016.

E. The occurrence of a traffic accident involving the front part of a halog car and the occurrence of a traffic accident was discovered, and the suspicion of drinking was discovered to the police officer called out after receiving the report, and the Defendant’s entrance was smelled at the Defendant’s entrance, and the words and behavior were divided, and driving was done under the influence of alcohol, such as a string distance.

There is a reasonable reason to determine the person, and even if the F of the U.S. Police Station demanded the measurement of drinking on five occasions from around 00:15 to around 00:40 on July 22, 2016, the person did not comply with the demand without good cause.

B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the road of this case is a slope of 2.7% to 1.6% of the old passage (which was distributed to the court below's decision; (b) the vehicle above the road of this case was driven behind the vehicle of this case due to the demonstration of the Road Traffic Authority; (c) according to the estimate and the accident site photograph (Evidence No. 10 pages), the front part of the vehicle of this case was in contact with the Defendant and the damaged vehicle; and (d) the vehicle of this case was driven by the power-driven equipment at the time of this case, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the vehicle of this case was driven by the Defendant at the time of this case; and (b) the vehicle of this case was driven by the power-driven equipment.

the defendant was driving a motor vehicle at the time only with other evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

recognized.