The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(In fact or misunderstanding of legal principles) Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "If there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, etc., a driver may have a breath test the person under the influence of alcohol." Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that a person under the duty to comply with a breath test does not necessarily require that the person under the duty to comply with a breath test is a driver under the influence of alcohol, as well as when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person under the influence of alcohol was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

However, according to each statement made by the defendant and the victim at the police station, it is recognized that the defendant under the influence of alcohol was a situation likely to be suspected of driving at the time of the request for alcohol measurement, and therefore, as long as the defendant who has a duty to respond to the request for alcohol measurement by a police officer refuses it, the crime of non-compliance with the request for alcohol measurement is established. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the fact that the court below acquitted the defendant

Judgment

The crime of non-compliance with the measurement of alcohol under Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act is established when a person who has a reasonable ground to be recognized as being under the influence of alcohol fails to comply with the measurement by a police officer under Article 44 (2) of the same Act.

In addition, Article 44 (2) of the same Act recognizes that it is necessary for police officers to ensure traffic safety and prevent danger or that police officers have driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of the provisions of paragraph (1).