The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person driving a passenger car (hereinafter referred to as “the instant passenger car”) in CSMBB (SM5).

On February 21, 2012, the Defendant refused to comply with a request for the measurement of drinking alcohol by a police officer to take a breath test for about three times a hour under the influence of alcohol, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize the Defendant to have been driven under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and smelling red on the face, while driving the said vehicle on the road front of Eart located in south-gu and south-gu at the time of sailing at the port, and driving the vehicle on February 21, 2012 at around 22:30, the Defendant refused to comply with a request for the measurement of drinking alcohol without justifiable grounds.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no conflict between J's statement concerning the circumstances leading up to E-art. There is no difference between J's circumstance leading up to E-art and the establishment of the defendant's non-compliance with the blood alcohol measurement. The J has consistently made a statement about the facts moving up to E-art and sufficient credibility.

On the other hand, the defendant's assertion is false because the defendant's statement on the reason why the car in this case was parked in front of the Eart is not consistent.

Therefore, according to the statement of the investigation report prepared by G during the process of the police box belonging to the coastwise Police Station, which confirms that the vehicle in this case was affected by the trial run, and according to the statement of J, the defendant is recognized to have driven the vehicle in this case.

B. In addition, G was at least a police officer who was under drinking control and deemed to have driven the vehicle in this case, and J reported the fact of drunk driving by the defendant, who was witness, and requested a drinking test on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to deem that the defendant who was under the influence of alcohol was driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and therefore, the defendant actually requested a drinking test.