The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the fact that if the police officer in charge did not conduct the measurement by blood collection method against the result of the pulmonary measuring instrument, the result of the pulmonary measuring instrument cannot be used as evidence for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On March 31, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant driven D Apurt Transport Quantities, and around 23:30 on March 23:30, 2012, the Defendant used approximately 250 meters of blood alcohol level under the influence of alcohol level 0.128% on the above vehicle. (2) The lower court determined that the Defendant was subject to pulmonary measurement by pulmonary measuring instruments around 23:58 on March 31, 2012, and the Defendant was 0.128% of the result, and the police officer notified the Defendant that the Defendant could have conducted a measurement by means of blood collection, and that the Defendant did not demand blood collection by means of blood sampling at the time of blood collection, and that the Defendant did not demand the measurement by the method of blood collection from the police officer at the time of his/her refusal to obtain consent from 25% or more of blood level 20% after his/her measurement by means of blood collection from the earth.