The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The police officer in charge of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles requested a drinking test according to the breath test although he could take a blood sampling method with the consent of the defendant or medical personnel, and it is improper to take a breath test only against the defendant who is the condition of the breath test, and as long as the blood collecting method was not attempted, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case and erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (refluence of drinking).

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On March 9, 2016, the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol from J in the emergency room of H hospital on March 9, 2016.

Even though there are reasonable grounds to determine a person, he/she has been requested to comply with the measurement of drinking by inserting approximately 33 minutes in a measuring instrument of drinking, he/she did not comply with the request of a police official for the measurement of drinking without justifiable grounds.

2) The lower court determined that ① the Defendant was absent from the vehicle on his own after the accident, ② the first-aid staff L, who was dispatched to the site, was under the influence of alcohol immediately after the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, but was in the state of being able to walk and have been able to walk for himself.

(4) A doctor who treated the defendant at a hospital also rejected a request from a police officer for the measurement of drinking by a police officer for the measurement of drinking by a police officer, (3) the defendant made a testimony, (4) the defendant's medical doctor who received a request from a police officer for the measurement of drinking by a police officer.

On the ground of testimony, the defendant was aware that he was requested by a police officer to measure drinking, and could sufficiently respond to the measurement of drinking alcohol.