The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not refuse to take a drinking test by a police officer, but did not receive a notification of the method of blood sampling by a police officer, and was sentenced to criminal punishment due to the refusal to take a drinking test. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the facts charged in this case should be sentenced to acquittal, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and erroneous determination of facts found guilty.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant received dental treatment 2 months prior to the crime of this case from the date of the crime of this case and did not receive any specific dental treatment prior to the crime of this case. ② The defendant received dental treatment 10 days after the crime of this case after the crime of this case, and submitted its opinion, but the above opinion does not seem to have a serious problem with the defendant's dental health, ③ the defendant's first alcohol reduction machine, and ④ the defendant's first alcohol reduction machine's second alcohol reduction machine's first alcohol reduction machine's second alcohol reduction machine's second alcohol reduction machine's second alcohol reduction, and ④ the defendant's second-hand behavior (the police officer's behavior that 100 meters away from the police officer's demand for alcohol measurement) cannot be understood, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case as it is not proper and proper.

In addition, the circumstantial statement of the host driver is the personal information of the person discovered as the host driver in the report.