A. Defendant 1) The evidence adopted by the court below as evidence of guilt and misapprehension of the legal principle is practically acquired in a state of unlawful coercion, or is acquired without a warrant even though the defendant cannot be deemed to have voluntarily submitted, because it constitutes a compulsory disposition, and also acquired the defendant's crime by enforcing the crime without notifying the right to refuse to make statements and the right to appoint a defense counsel.

Therefore, the above evidence is not admissible as evidence collected without complying with due process and method, or as evidence obtained based on it. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2) It is improper for the lower court to exempt the Defendant from issuing an order to disclose or notify personal information.

Judgment

A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The Defendant’s illegality of voluntary accompanying and seizure procedures in the grounds of appeal also asserted the illegality of voluntary accompanying and seizure procedures during the appeal. The lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion by clearly explaining the judgment on the “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the said judgment.

Examining these judgments of the court below closely by comparison with the evidential materials, the judgment is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the right to refuse to make statements and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the police officer’s voluntary accompanying the Defendant from E to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not notify the Defendant of the right to refuse to make statements and the right to appoint a defense counsel, which is set forth in the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the lower court by the Defendant.