2. The summary of the judgment of the defendant shall be published.

On January 11, 2013, the Defendant reported that the traffic accident was occurred in the Daejeon Pungdong-gu, Daejeon Pungdong-gu, Daejeon******* * A person suspected of drunk driving. On January 1, 2013, the Defendant was under the control of B B of the Daejeon Pungsan Police Station, who was in the Nungdong-gu, Daejeon Pungdong-gu.

On January 11, 2013, at around 02:21, the Defendant demanded a drinking test on the question of B, who had been examined in the Geongsung District, on the following grounds: “The Defendant did not have any reason to respond to a drinking test,” and requested a drinking test on the ground that there was considerable reason to recognize that B had been driven under the influence of alcohol, such as her, with a red, smelling, and smelling.” However, the Defendant did not comply with the drinking test without good cause.

2. Determination

A. Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act explicitly provides for the principle of voluntary investigation. The method for an investigator to accompany a suspect to an investigative agency, etc. in the form of obtaining consent from an investigation and a court room does not have any means to restrain the physical freedom of a suspect even though it is substantially similar to the arrest. Thus, it is highly likely that the investigative agency may bring about a decision contrary to the principle of the Criminal Procedure Act, such as not providing various security measures granted to a suspect under arrest and detention under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the suspect is transferred at a regular stage of arrest and detention. Therefore, the legality of accompanying should be recognized only when it is clearly proved by objective circumstances that the investigator was carried out by voluntary will of the suspect, such as where the investigator knew that he/she could refuse accompanying the suspect prior to the accompanying, or where the accompanying suspect was allowed to leave the place of accompanying at any time, and only when it is proved by the objective circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do839, Sep. 28, 2012).

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the following facts are acknowledged.

① 둔산경찰서 유성지구대 경사 丙 , 丁은 ' 어떤 사람이 교통사고를 내고 도주하였 다 ' 는 112 신고를 받고 * * 호텔 맞은편 도로에 출동하였다가 , 현장에서 신고자가 그곳 에서 100여 미터 떨어진 곳에 용의자가 있다고 알려주어 + + 호텔 뒤편 + + 일식 주차 장으로 이동하였고 그곳에서 자신 소유의 대전 * * * * 호 * * 승용차에 타고 있던 피고인을 만나 교통사고 경위에 대해 질문하였는데 , 피고인이 ' 교통사고를 낸 게 아니고 차량을 발로 찼을 뿐이다 ' 라고 진술하여 경사 丁이 ' 제가 여기서 판단해 드리기는 뭐하고 사고 조사 반하고 이야기를 해야 한다 ' 고 하자 , 이에 피고인이 응하여 경찰차에 탑승하고 유 성지구대로 동행하였는데 , 그 과정에서 경사 丁이나 丙이 피고인에게 ‘ 동행을 거부할 수 있음을 알려주거나 동행한 피고인이 언제든지 자유로이 동행과정에서 이탈하거나 또는 동행장소에서 퇴거할 수 있음을 알려준 바는 없다 .

② 피고인을 경찰차에 태워 유성지구대로 데리고 갔던 경사 丁은 이 법정에 증인으 로 출석하여 ' 동행을 거부할 수 있음을 알려주거나 동행한 피의자가 언제든지 자유로 이 동행과정에서 이탈하거나 또는 동행장소에서 퇴거할 수 있음을 알려주지 않은 이 유 ' 에 대해 ' 교통사고 조사 업무는 자신의 업무가 아니라서 교통사고 조사반에게 인계 만 해 주면 되었기 때문에 지구대로 임의동행할 필요도 없었는데 , 피고인 스스로 지구 대로 가자고 하며 경찰차 뒷좌석에 타 자진출석한 것이므로 동행 거부 권리 등을 고지 하지 않은 것 ' 이라고 진술하고 있다 .

③ 그러나 둔산경찰서 경위 乙이 작성한 이 사건 수사결과보고 ( 수사기록 47쪽 ) 에 의하면 ‘ 최초 교통사고가 발생하였다는 신고에 의해 유성지구대에서 출동하였고 , 그 때 술을 마시고 운전을 하였다는 피해자의 신고 내용에 의해 사고 관련자 ( 피고인 ) 을 유성 지구대까지 임의동행을 하여 조사하였다 ' 고 기재되어 있고 , 피고인이 경찰차에 타는 과 정을 현장에서 지켜본 증인 戊 역시 ' 피고인이 경찰차에 타게 된 경위 ’ 에 대하여 ' 반항 하고 그런 것은 없었던 것으로 알고 있고 지구대 가자고 해서 순순히 탄 것으로 알고 있다 ' 고 진술하고 있다 .

C. In light of the above facts, it appears that the defendant was summoned by the police for the accident of this case in relation to the accident of this case and did not voluntarily attend the investigative agency based on his free will, but rather became a voluntary movement form within the district by the explicit or implicit request of the police officer for the investigation of traffic accidents. In the process, the police officer notified the suspect that he could refuse to accompany prior to the accompanying, or the suspect accompanied could not freely leave the place of accompanying at any time and did not notify the suspect that he would be able to leave the place of accompanying. Thus, the above voluntary behavior is judged to be an illegal arrest without legitimate requirements. In the event of illegal arrest, the series of processes should be deemed to have been deemed to have been illegal after considering the whole process, and even if there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the driver had been driving a driving in the workplace, and thus compelling the driver to comply with the above illegal request for alcohol measurement by the police officer, and thus, it cannot be punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1621, Dec. 121, 2012

D. If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.