Residence

Reference domicile

On March 14, 2013: around 50 05: The Defendant driven a blood alcohol concentration of 0.148% on the roads in Incheon, which are located in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Incheon. 7, the roads in front of the death distance of the small-scale hospital ** * R6* Ho-gu *.

2. Determination

Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act explicitly states the principle of voluntary investigation. Inasmuch as an investigator’s accompanying a suspect to the investigative agency, etc. in the form of obtaining consent from the investigative agency, there is no way to restrain the suspect’s physical freedom, which is substantially similar to the arrest, and thus, it cannot be systematically and practically arbitiblely guaranteed, as well as it is highly likely that the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act do not provide various guarantee devices granted to the suspect under arrest and detention on the ground that it has yet to be prior to the regular arrest and detention, and thus, it would be contrary to the principle of the Criminal Procedure Act, such as the provision of various guarantee devices granted to the suspect under arrest and detention, and thus, it is highly probable that the investigator may refuse the accompanying of the suspect prior to the accompanying, or the suspect accompanied may be allowed to leave the accompanying place at any time without complying with the procedure of the suspect’s voluntary investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do7278, Jun. 3, 2011).

According to the records of this case, the defendant's voluntary behavior against the defendant is acknowledged to have been accompanied to a police officer's zone under the request of the police officer **, etc. who was parked in the vehicle parked prior to the death distance of the Incheon Jung-gu Incheon Jung-dong 3, 7. In light of the fact that it was proved that the defendant's voluntary behavior against the defendant did not comply with the procedure of notification such as informing the defendant that he would have been able to go to the defendant about voluntary behavior in this court ** because it was proved to the purport that the defendant's voluntary behavior of this case was carried out only by the suspect's voluntary will, and it is difficult to view that the defendant's voluntary behavior of this case constitutes a case where it is evident that it was carried out by the suspect's objective circumstance that it was carried out by the investigator's voluntary desire, and that the defendant's voluntary behavior of this case violated the warrant principle of Article 120 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 20 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and evidence collected by the investigation agency for criminal prosecution.