The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant has not responded to a request for a measurement of drinking according to the direction of the police officer, and has not refused a request for a measurement of drinking.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 주장에 대한 판단 호흡측정기에 의한 음주측정은 운전자가 호흡측정기에 숨을 세게 불어넣는 방식으로 행하여지는 것으로서 여기에는 운전자의 자발적인 협조가 필수적이라 할 것이므로, 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 없다

As long as a driver fails to comply with a pulmonary measuring instrument without any justifiable reason, the crime of non-compliance with the breath test is established, and the latter does not change because the police officer did not investigate whether the breath is drinking by means of blood collection, etc.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Do5210 Decided April 21, 200). The court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant, at around February 5, 2019, was informed on the contact that a restaurant located in Sinung-si B would move and drive the vehicle and caused the vehicle to move and drive the vehicle, ② the Defendant confirmed that the vehicle was drinking and reported to the Defendant, ② the police officer E, etc., who called on the site of the accident after receiving the report, was aware that the Defendant was drinking and drinking at around February 16:13, 2019, and ③ the Defendant demanded a alcohol measurement at drinking level on February 5, 2019.