The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles notified the Defendant that the Defendant’s act constitutes a refusal of drinking alcohol measurement at 13 minutes after the initial request for measurement, and arrested the Defendant as a current offender of the crime of violation of the Traffic Act (Refusal of drinking measurement) on the road. However, according to the traffic control guidelines, the crime of violation of the Traffic Act (Refusal of drinking measurement) is established only when the police officer notified three times at intervals of five minutes of disadvantage due to the non-smoking of drinking measurement but fails to comply with the drinking measurement although the police officer notified three times at intervals of five minutes. Thus, the procedure for measuring the Defendant

In addition, the defendant's response to the police officer's request for alcohol testing more than nine times without expressing his intention to refuse the request for alcohol testing, but it is only not measured, so it does not constitute a refusal of alcohol testing.

B. The fact that the illegal defendant in sentencing did not actively refuse to measure drinking, but only did not measure the lack of samples despite the fact that the illegal defendant's non-breathesis was unbundled, and that he did not closely reflect the crime and repeat the crime.

In light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the aged's disease and the fact that the aged's parents should support, the punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the traffic control guidelines of the National Police Agency are merely the internal guidelines of the National Police Agency, and do not externally affect the general public or are bound by the court. Thus, the traffic control guidelines of the National Police Agency cannot be deemed to have violated them, as alleged by the Defendant, in the course of demanding

Even if a request for the measurement of drinking alcohol cannot be deemed illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8075, Dec. 9, 2005; 2010Do1532, May 13, 2010; 201Do2883, May 13, 201); and (2) The Defendant included a short explanation made by a police officer on the method of measuring drinking alcohol and a request for the measurement of drinking alcohol shortly in the respiratory measuring instrument.