The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, when the Defendant calculated the alcohol concentration in the blood on the basis of the drinking alcohol at the time, he/she was driving at the time of driving or at the time of receiving a request for a measurement of alcohol, even though the blood alcohol concentration does not exceed 0.05%, he/she was driving at the time of blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.05%.

prescribed in subsection (1) of this section.

The lower court, which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the crime of refusing to comply with the alcohol alcohol measurement under Article 107-2 subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act is under the influence of alcohol.

A person who has a reasonable reason to be determined is established when he/she fails to comply with a police officer's measurement under Article 41 (2) of the same Act, and the term "toxic state" in this context means a state of drinking not less than 0.05% of alcohol in blood, which is punished as a crime of driving alcohol, and thus, the crime of refusing to measure alcohol is established, so in order to establish the crime of refusing to measure alcohol, a driver does not necessarily have to be in a state of not less than 0.05% of alcohol in blood, but at least 0.05% of alcohol in blood, is in a state of not less than 0.05% of alcohol.

that is in a state of alcohol, and further, that is in a state of alcohol;

Whether there is a reasonable ground to determine the person’s appearance must be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as driving behavior of each individual driver at the time of the request for alcohol measurement (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6632, Jan. 24, 2003, etc.). 2) In the instant case, the following circumstances, which were revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the records, are, namely, the Defendant, to the extent of two hours prior to driving of the instant case.