2. If the judgment investigative agency, without obtaining a warrant or a permit for appraisal disposition from the court, collected blood without the consent of the suspect, and conducted an appraisal of the alcohol concentration using the blood of the suspect who forced the collection of blood without obtaining a warrant after ex post facto without delay, such appraisal result report, etc. constitutes evidence collected or based on it in violation of the warrant principle under the Criminal Procedure Act.

This is to the extent that the procedural violation infringes on the substantial contents of due process, so such evidence has the consent of the defendant or defense counsel.

Even if it cannot be used as evidence of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2109, Apr. 28, 2011). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, we examine whether the instant case was made with the Defendant’s voluntary consent (hereinafter “the instant blood collection”) in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

A police officer D, who called to the scene at the time and continued to collect blood from the defendant, requested the defendant to conduct a breath measurement due to the suspicion that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol to the F Hospital located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E due to a traffic accident that occurred on March 7, 2016 at the court, and the defendant transferred to the F Hospital located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and received medical treatment, but did not comply with the request, but did not comply with the request and collected the defendant's blood with the consent of the person in charge of

was stated.

In this regard, even according to the witness D's testimony, the defendant is difficult to enter the consent letter of blood collection at the time.