A. Police officers recommended the Defendant to leave after measuring alcohol alcohol at the time of voluntary accompanying of the instant case, but did not actively restrain the Defendant from leaving. Since the Defendant could freely leave, the voluntary accompanying of the instant case is lawful, and the notification of the result of the crackdown on the driving of alcohol after voluntary accompanying, and the statement of the situation of the driver at the time of voluntary accompanying of the instant case are admissible.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in recognizing admissibility of each of the above evidence.

(b) No household affairs;

Even if the Defendant led to the confession of the facts charged in this case in the court below, and the police officer’s statement in the court below was reinforced as to the confession. Thus, according to these evidence, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is 0.150%.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justified, since it is judged that voluntary accompanying to the defendant is illegal in light of the following circumstances revealed by the records of this case, which were lawfully explained by the court below as to the legitimacy of voluntary accompanying to the defendant.

1) According to the DNA CCTV images, between the Defendant’s moving to the zone at the time of the instant case and the measurement of drinking, if the Defendant attempted to go out of the DNA zone on about four occasions, including around 00:36 ,00:57 ,01 ,01 ,01 , and around 01:18 , police officers may confirm how to stop from the DNA zone.

In addition, the method to stop the defendant is accompanied by the tangible force such as fasting the defendant's hand and fasting the defendant's hand on the right side, blocking the entrance by body, closing the entrance.

2) According to the above CCTV images, the method of leaving the D Zone is the left side and right side of the entrance.