The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had drinking at the time of the instant case, but the Defendant did not drive a vehicle while driving the vehicle at the time, and thus, the Defendant’s failure to comply with a police officer’s request for measurement of drinking does not constitute a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

2. The crime of violating the Road Traffic Act is established when a person who has reasonable grounds to recognize that a person is under the influence of alcohol has failed to comply with a measurement by a police officer under Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act. When a police officer recognizes it necessary for the safety of traffic and the prevention of danger or when there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a person driving a motor vehicle, etc. under the influence of alcohol has been under the influence of alcohol in violation of paragraph (1), the driver may determine whether the person is under the influence of alcohol and the driver shall comply with such a measurement by the police officer. Thus, the person who is obliged to comply with a request for a alcohol measurement by a police officer on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the person driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44 (1) of

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7074 Decided January 12, 2007). Accordingly, the court below stated to the effect that the defendant's vehicle was 50cm in the future when the defendant driven a vehicle as stated in the facts charged in drinking condition, and the witness G opened the studio in his own vehicle after leaving the studio in the court of original instance, and the defendant's vehicle entered the studio, etc. in the defendant's vehicle after leaving the studs, and the defendant went to 50cm in the future. The witness I stated in the court of original instance that the defendant's vehicle was 50cm away from G's vehicle and 1m away from G's vehicle at the court of original instance. However, the defendant's vehicle was left to the defendant's vehicle because the defendant's vehicle was faced with the back criminal defendant's vehicle.