도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In cases of voluntary accompanying of the gist of grounds for appeal, it is unnecessary to notify the gist, etc. of the alleged crime, unlike the arrest;
Even if it is necessary to notify the summary of the suspected crime, the police officer in this case notified the defendant of his driving under the influence of alcohol.
must be viewed.
In addition, according to the statements of D and E, police officers who requested the accompanying at the time of the instant case, they may refuse the request of the Defendant for voluntary accompanying and at any time leave the same time.
It is recognized that the notice was given.
Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the voluntary accompanying of this case is lawful.
Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict of the facts charged on the premise that voluntary accompanying of the instant case is illegal. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting
2. Determination
A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant had driven alcohol, and the summary of the facts charged in the instant case was as follows, the Defendant driven a C-car under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.065% in the blood alcohol level of about 4 kilometers from Cheongju-gu Cheongju-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongju-do to the Defendant’s dwelling place via the Corporation at around 09:20 on May 29, 2016.
B. The lower court’s determination is difficult to view that the accompanying of this case to the Defendant solely by the Defendant’s voluntary will constitutes an objective case where it is clearly proven by objective circumstances that the accompanying of this case to the investigative authority was carried out by the Defendant. Although police officers did not exercise physical power at the time of accompanying the Defendant and the Defendant did not explicitly express his intention of refusal, the police officers’ accompanying of the Defendant to the police station cannot refuse the demand of accompanying the enforcement officer without supporting the Defendant by meeting the legitimate requirements of voluntary accompanying.