The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On March 20, 2015, the Defendant’s defense counsel filed a statement of grounds of appeal on March 20, 2015, and argued misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing as the grounds of appeal, but the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds of appeal on the first day of the trial of the first instance. The above assertion of grounds of appeal on unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal as it was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the grounds of appeal. Thus,

The Defendant, after drinking alcohol at the convenience store, was locked at the convenience store, was the Defendant, and the police officers belonging to the G District let the Defendant get off the said vehicle and get off the said vehicle, followed the patrol vehicle into the G District by force, and demanded a alcohol alcohol measurement at the G District.

The police officers are illegal arrest to force the defendant as above, and there is no obligation to respond to the defendant to the demand for a alcohol alcohol measurement made in an illegal arrest state, so the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (two years of probation, 40 hours of probation, and order to attend a lecture in six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 피고인의 사실오인 내지 법리오해 주장에 대한 판단 살피건대, 원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택하고 조사한 증거들을 종합하면, ① 피고인은 2014. 4. 15. 03:20경 회색 스타렉스 차량을 운전하여 용인시 기흥구 D에 있는 E편의점으로 갔고, 그 곳에서 맥주를 마시다가 같은 날 04:00경 위 차량에 탑승하여 시동을 켠 채 잠을 잔 사실, ② 위 편의점의 직원은 ‘피고인이 술에 취한 상태에서 회색 스타렉스 차량을 운전하여 편의점으로 왔다.’는 취지로 112에 신고한 사실, ③ 112 신고를 받고 현장에 출동한...