The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Since there was no reasonable ground to suspect that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, the crime of non-compliance with the measurement of alcohol is not established on the ground that the defendant refused the measurement of alcohol.

B. At the time, the defendant's act of demanding a drinking test without transferring the defendant's family to the police office is not a legitimate protective measure, and thus illegal arrest was made against the defendant.

Therefore, it is illegal that the request for a drinking test made in such illegal arrest is illegal, so even if the defendant refuses to comply with it, the crime of refusal of drinking test is not established.

2. Determination

A. As to the argument that there is no reasonable ground to suspect that the defendant has driven under the influence of alcohol, the crime of refusing to take a drunk test under Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act is established when a person who has a reasonable ground to recognize that the person has a drunken state fails to comply with a police officer's measurement under Article 44 (2) of the same Act. In light of the provisions of Article 44 (2) of the same Act, when considering the objective circumstances at the time of the request for a drunk test, there is considerable reason to recognize that the driver has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and when it is necessary to confirm the driver's driving under the influence of alcohol, it is not clear that it is impossible to confirm whether the driver's driving under the influence of alcohol is under the influence of alcohol, a police officer may request the driver concerned to take a drunk test, and if the driver fails to comply with the request, a police officer may also request the driver to take a drunk test under Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do3069, Jun. 13, 19, 199).