A. In light of the legal principles, detention procedures such as issuance of a detention warrant at 142 hours after the defendant was arrested, are unlawful, and seizure and search procedures against the defendant are also illegal without a warrant.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the misapprehension of legal principles’ assertion, the court below and the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, the investigator found the defendant who was trying to leave the dwelling place of the defendant after receiving information that the defendant provided phiphonephones, and found the defendant who was trying to abscond at the dwelling place on March 6, 2015, and the investigator arrested the defendant on March 6, 2015. The investigator arrested the defendant on emergency arrest at the dwelling place, dwelling place, and the vehicle inside the dwelling place of the defendant (Article 217(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires urgent seizure of the articles owned, possessed, or kept by the person arrested pursuant to Article 200-3 without a warrant within 24 hours, a prosecutor may search, seize, or verify the above articles without a warrant within 30 hours, and the prosecutor requested a warrant of search, seizure, or verification of evidence issued on March 9, 2015, and issued the warrant of detention around 30: 15.7. 15. 2015.

According to the above facts, it is difficult to view that there is any error in the process of emergency arrest, and the detention process against the defendant is legitimate, as the grounds under Article 200-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act are acknowledged.

I would like to say.

In addition, seizure and search warrant is seized at the site of emergency arrest without the warrant of search and seizure.