The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) was that the Defendant was unable to be at the time of receiving a demand from a police officer to take a alcohol test, and the Defendant was required to take a alcohol test three times at intervals of ten minutes, even though the Defendant had to take a alcohol test at least three times.

Since a request for a measurement of drinking alcohol was made in an illegal manner, it is not established a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act even if the request is rejected.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination:

(a) The relevant provisions of the Transport Control Guidelines with respect to the instant case are as follows:

Article 38 (Criteria for Measurement) (3) In measuring alcoholic beverages, a person who has taken a alcohol test shall verify to a driver whether he/she has used similar alcoholic beverages, such as the final drinking time and clean clean of the mouth, and shall prevent the excessive measurement of remaining alcoholic beverages in the mouth (20 minutes of remaining alcoholic beverages in the mouth from the time of drinking).

(11) A driver who fails to comply with a demand for alcohol measurement shall clearly notify the driver at least three times at intervals of 10 minutes of the disadvantage resulting from the non-compliance with the demand for alcohol measurement, and shall prepare a report on the detection of the driver at the driver at the time of refusal to measure despite such notification.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the police officer’s demand for the measurement of drinking alcohol against the traffic control guidelines.

shall not be deemed to exist.

① At the time of the instant case, E, a police officer, requested the Defendant to take a drinking test, and the Defendant refused it and changed the drinking water.

Accordingly, although E was the drinking water pursuant to the World Cup, the Defendant did not believe that the water provided by the police was not reliable, and he would drink at a direct convenience store.

was made.

E is accompanied by the defendant and went to a nearby convenience store, and at the convenience store, the defendant is a beer can with drinking at a place where drinking is displayed.