The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant had already driven a vehicle and parked the vehicle for more than 30 minutes, and thereafter, dice only one week while eating at “D cafeteria.”

However, the defendant's illegal parking problem, G, the principal restaurant operator of G, reported two times to the police first, and the police officer reported two times again after H returned to the police officer, and forced the police officers dispatched to take a drinking test to the defendant, and the defendant refused to take a drinking test on the ground that he is likely to receive an unfair suspicion of driving alcohol. Accordingly, the defendant refused to take a drinking test on the ground that the police officer's refusal to take a drinking test had justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, protection observation, community service, and lecture attendance order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of fact 1) Police officers of the relevant legal doctrine are deemed necessary to ensure traffic safety and prevent danger, or driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

If there is a reasonable ground to determine a person, a driver may be breathed from a breath test; in such a case, the driver shall comply with a breath test by a police officer (Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act); in addition, under the influence of alcohol.

A person who has reasonable grounds to be determined by a person who fails to comply with a measurement of drinking by a police officer as above constitutes a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act under Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., refusal of drinking);

In order to establish a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal to measure drinking), the driver is punished as a crime of drinking driving at the time of request for measurement of drinking, and the degree of alcohol level is not less than 0.05%.