The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendant driven at the time of the instant case is sufficiently proven.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by erroneous determination.

2. The offense of refusing to comply with the measurement of drinking under Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act is under the influence of alcohol;

A person with considerable grounds for appointment is established when he/she fails to comply with a police officer’s measurement under Article 44(2) of the same Act. Article 44(2) of the same Act recognizes that it is necessary for a police officer to ensure traffic safety and prevent danger or that a police officer driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of the provisions of paragraph (1).

In a case where there are reasonable grounds to determine a person, a driver may be measured whether the driver is under the influence of alcohol, and the driver shall comply with such a measurement by a police officer. Thus, the driver has driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the same Act.

Any person who is required to comply with a request by a police officer for a measurement of drinking on the ground that there is a reasonable ground to determine a person is the "motor vehicle driver" of the relevant motor vehicle, and when he is not the driver of the relevant motor vehicle, he/she is in violation of the provisions of prohibition of driving under

There is no room for seeing that it does not constitute a case where the Defendant did not comply with the measurement of drinking under Article 2(2) of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do7074, Jan. 12, 2007; 2005Do8594, Oct. 11, 2007). The lower court proven that the Defendant was driving at the time of the instant case to the extent that there was reasonable doubt for excluding a reasonable doubt.

On the ground that it is difficult to see it, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of violating the Road Traffic Act.

On the other hand, there are various circumstances acknowledged by the records, i.e., the instant case.