The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant does not intentionally refuse the measurement of drinking, as follows.

① The Defendant was in the process of taking meals on the day of the instant case and was exposed to the drinking control of the instant case while being in Seoul Hospital because it was difficult for the Defendant to suffer from pain.

② At the time of the first demand for measurement, the Defendant continued to post a telephone to her husband in a yellow and yellow situation, and did not avoid refusing the measurement.

③ At the time of the second demand for measurement, the Defendant was unable to conceal his best in open circumstances, but did not reach the level required by the police, and did not refuse the measurement.

④ At the time of the third measurement request, the police had already complied with the measurement of alcohol at an open point, but it was easy to issue a fake certificate to demand a re-measurement, and did not act as an intention to refuse the measurement of alcohol.

2. 판단 도로교통법 제44조 제2항에 의하여 경찰공무원이 운전자가 술에 취하였는지의 여부를 알아보기 위하여 실시하는 측정은 호흡을 채취하여 그로부터 주취의 정도를 객관적으로 환산하는 측정방법 즉, 호흡측정기에 의한 측정으로 이해하여야 할 것이고, 한편 호흡측정기에 의한 음주측정은 운전자가 호흡측정기에 숨을 세게 불어넣는 방식으로 행하여지는 것으로서 여기에는 운전자의 자발적인 협조가 필수적이라 할 것이므로, 운전자가 경찰공무원으로부터 음주측정을 요구받고 호흡측정기에 숨을 내쉬는 시늉만 하는 등 형식적으로 음주측정에 응하였을 뿐 경찰공무원의 거듭된 요구에도 불구하고 호흡측정기에 음주측정수치가 나타날 정도로 숨을 제대로 불어넣지 아니하였다면 이는 실질적으로 음주측정에 불응한 것과 다를 바 없다

(2) The driver has a legitimate reason.