The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the police officer’s request for a breath test, was unable to comply with the breath test due to a breathous breath, and thus, requested blood collection on his own. Nevertheless, the police officer neglected the request and led the Defendant to the refusal to take a b

B. The lower court’s punishment (five million won of a fine) is too unreasonable, even if it is considered as an unreasonable sentencing case and guilty.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, including video CDs duly admitted and investigated at the time of determining the assertion of mistake, the Defendant refused to take a breath test only by repeating the phrase “A crime” to the police officer’s initial demand for a breath test, and the Defendant first refused a breath test at the second demand for measurement so called “I am a crime,” and notified the enforcement officer that I would be able to take a breath test at this time, while giving notice that I would be able to take a breath test, he would breath off the water instead, and the police officer should prepare a written consent at the site of “I am a good faith?” The Defendant cannot prepare a written consent at the site of “I am a breathy” in order to take a breath test to collect blood, and asked what blood type is well known, and refuses to comply with a request by the police officer for a breath test, etc., and refused to complete the brea test by the police officer.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, contrary to the defendant's assertion, can be found to have refused a police officer's request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds as stated in the facts of crime.

As such, it is eventually.