The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the rejection of a measurement of drinking alcohol, the arrest of a police officer prior to a request for a measurement of drinking was illegal. Since the Defendant drank alcohol after parking, it is justifiable for the Defendant to refuse to comply with a police officer’s request for a measurement of drinking alcohol.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence of August, 200, 40 hours of lecture for compliance driving, and 160 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances revealed by the lower court, the arrest of the Defendant by a police officer prior to a request for drinking alcohol measurement was lawful in determining the assertion of mistake of facts.

may be seen.

B. According to the evidence examined by the court below, since the defendant snickly snicked at the time of the police officer's request for the measurement of drinking, the defendant snicked while walking with a snick, and the defendant snicked and driven a drinking prior to parking, the defendant snicked in a drunken state.

applicable to “persons with reasonable grounds to be appointed”.

Even if the defendant dices alcohol after parking, as argued by the defendant.

Even if such circumstance does not constitute a justifiable reason to refuse a request for alcohol measurement.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (refluence of drinking), did not err by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the judgment

B. The injured party does not want to punish the Defendant for the wrongful argument of sentencing.

However, in full view of the various circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, such as special intimidation, while being tried for the same victim due to a special injury, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is unfair in view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) there is no change in special circumstances or circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment.