The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person driving a C-A-A-Wood passenger vehicle.

On October 22:51, 2014, the Defendant was demanded to comply with a drinking test by inserting approximately 32 minutes into a drinking measuring instrument from around 23:01 to 23:33 of the same day, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking alcohol, smelling, sniffing, bruing snow, hyming body, and rhyming, etc. from the slope D belonging to the traffic safety department of the Daegu Pacific Police Station.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

2. The measurement conducted by a police officer to ascertain whether a driver under Article 41(2) of the Road Traffic Act is under the influence of alcohol shall be understood as a measurement conducted by a respiratory measuring instrument, i.e., a method of objectively converting the degree of taking the alcohol from the pulmon and objectively (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do5210, Apr. 21, 200). Meanwhile, according to Article 41(3) of the Road Traffic Act, with respect to a driver dissatisfied with the result of a measurement as to whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol under paragraph (2), a re-measurement can be conducted by means of blood collection, etc. after obtaining consent from the driver. Thus, in a case where the driver is dissatisfied with the result of the measurement conducted by the above pulmonology and requests a measurement by the blood collection method, the police officer must comply with such request, and if the police officer did not perform a measurement by the blood collection method despite the driver's legitimate demand, it cannot prove the fact of taking the driver's license only by the result of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do7121, Mar. 15, 2002). Furthermore, a pulmonary tester is measured.