All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 14,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) On the first instance judgment, the driver is under the influence of alcohol in the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (e.g., refusal to measure drinking).

Whether there is a reasonable ground to determine a person shall be carefully determined by taking into account the objective circumstances. However, the police officer called up at the time of the instant case requested the Defendant to take a drinking test even though there is no reasonable ground as above, ② the fact that a motor vehicle was in the center of the road of the instant case is not caused by the Defendant’s driving act, but is presumed to have been traveling by the Defendant, and this is merely presumed to have been driven by the brick without the Defendant’s intent to drive or the vehicle operation. ③ At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s act of the Defendant does not constitute a crime of violation of the Traffic Act (refluence of drinking), but the Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime of violation of the law on the road traffic (refluence of drinking), and the Defendant’s act does not constitute a mistake in the facts charged.

2) As to the judgment of the court below of the second instance, in the case of violation of the Road Traffic Act (measures after the accident), among the facts charged, the degree of the accident between the defendant and the victim is very minor and the defendant did not recognize that his vehicle was in line with the victim's vehicle.

B) Of the facts charged, the Defendant’s act of violating the Traffic Act on the road (e.g., refusing to take a drinking test) was found to be an act of refusing to take a drinking test, and the Defendant did not intentionally refuse to take a drinking test on the ground that the Defendant did not promptly have been installed in a drinking measuring instrument but was not measured because the state of the mouth at the time was not good.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the above part of the charges guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.