The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) found that the Defendant did not drive alcohol while drinking alcohol, but the police officer unfairly requested the measurement of drinking alcohol and the Defendant refused to comply with the measurement.

Since then, the police station requested the defendant to take a drinking test first, but the police officer rejected the defendant's request for a drinking test.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “in cases of failing to comply with a police officer’s measurement” under Article 148-2(1)2 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) refers to cases where it is objectively evident that a driver who has reasonable grounds to be recognized as being under the influence of alcohol has no intention to comply with a alcohol test in light of the overall progress of the case.

(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do5115, Jun. 15, 2017). If a driver explicitly and actively expresses his/her intent to refuse a measurement of drinking, a crime of non-compliance with a measurement of drinking may be established immediately. However, in such a case, whether there was objectively apparent intention of non-compliance with a measurement of drinking, including the driver’s speech, attitude, etc. at the time of the driver’s request for a measurement of drinking, the reason why the police officer requested a measurement of drinking, the method and degree of the request for the measurement, the method and degree of the request for the measurement, the method and degree of the request for the measurement, and the relevant documents following the non-compliance with the measurement, such as the report on a driver detection of drinking, and the driver must be carefully determined after

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8481 Decided December 24, 2015). B.

Judgment

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol.