The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) found the Defendant to have requested the Defendant to collect blood immediately after the pulmonary measurement by the control police officer, and the Defendant did not want to make a written consent from the control police officer to collect blood. However, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant requested the Defendant to collect blood after a considerable time after the pulmonary measurement, and that the Defendant was found to have proved the Defendant’s d

2. According to each evidence of the lower judgment, the lower court found the following facts: (a) on July 3, 2019, based on each of the following evidence: (b) on July 3, 2019, the Defendant was urged to temporarily stop the Defendant’s driving vehicle on a one-time basis; (c) on July 3, 2019, the Defendant was placed at a one-time salary level; and (d) on the one-time basis, the Defendant was informed that blood samples can be measured by blood sampling; and (e) on the other, the blood alcohol concentration level was 0.090%; (b) on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant was asked to produce a driver’s license; (c) on the other hand, the Defendant was urged to request a second pulmonary measuring instrument to measure the alcohol level; (d) on the one-time basis, the Defendant did not disclose his status including personal information; and (e) on the other, on the same day, the control police officer rejected the Defendant’s request to arrest the police officer in violation of Road Traffic Act on the same day.

Furthermore, in light of the above recognized facts, the court below cannot take necessary procedures because the Defendant's blood sampling request was made after about 30 minutes after the pulmonary measuring instruments have taken a breath test, and there was no disclosure of personal information.