The defendant shall be innocent.

On November 25, 2013, at around 16:25, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting a drinking measuring instrument four times at around 16:27, 16:37, 16:48, 16:48, 16:59, and 16:59, on the same day, the Defendant was in compliance with a drinking test by inserting alcohol into a drinking measuring instrument, making it difficult for the Defendant to recognize that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, and photographing.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s request for a alcohol test without justifiable grounds, referring to the sound that “Chop typ gushes that he/she directly drive in his/her inside.”

Judgment

The crime of refusal to take a alcohol level under subparagraph 2 of Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act is established when a person who has a reasonable ground to be recognized as being under the influence of alcohol fails to comply with the measurement by a police officer under Article 44 (2) of the same Act. Since a alcohol level measurement conducted solely on the ground that there are considerable grounds to be recognized as having been a driving under the influence of alcohol even though it is not necessary to ensure the safety of traffic and prevent danger, it has the meaning as an investigation procedure to collect evidence of a criminal act already conducted for the purpose of collecting evidence. Thus, in order to force a driver to take a alcohol level as above, the act of coercion conducted without disregarding such procedure constitutes an illegal arrest. In the event that a request for a alcohol level was made under the illegal arrest, the illegal arrest to demand a alcohol level measurement and the demand for a alcohol level measurement is against the criminal act that is a driving under the influence of alcohol.