The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, responded to the demand for measurement of drinking alcohol more than three times, and returned home after signing all the documents that the police officer demanded to sign, and the Defendant fabricated documents that the police officer rejected the demand for measurement of drinking alcohol.

The police officer failed to inform the defendant of the disadvantageous disposition in advance when he refuses to take the measurement of alcohol 3 times, and violated the procedure of the measurement of alcohol, such as not giving the defendant a request, even though the defendant had been requested to collect blood after the result of the impossibility of measurement 3 times.

Nevertheless, the court of original judgment has erred by misunderstanding facts which found guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The “measurement” under Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that a driver dissatisfied with the measurement result may re-measurement by means of blood collection, etc. with his consent. The systematic interpretation of Article 44(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that a driver who is dissatisfied with the measurement result shall be understood as a method of measurement, i.e., a method of objectively converting the degree of exploitation from the pulmonology.

한편, 호흡측정기에 의한 음주측정은 운전자가 호흡측정기에 숨을 세게 불어넣는 방식으로 행하여지는 것으로서 여기에는 운전자의 자발적인 협조가 필수적이므로, 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 없고, 운전자가 정당한 사유 없이...