2. 1) The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the result of drinking conducted by the defendant cannot be admitted as evidence, since the result of drinking conducted by the defendant was illegally accompanied to the police station.

2) It is reasonable to view that the legality of accompanying should be recognized only where it is clearly proven by objective circumstances that an investigator, while accompanying the suspect in the course of an investigation, knew that the suspect could refuse accompanying the suspect prior to accompanying the suspect at any time, or that the suspect could freely leave the accompanying place, etc., was accompanied by the suspect’s voluntary intention, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do8890, Sept. 13, 2012; 2009Do6717, Jun. 30, 201; 2005Do6810, Jul. 6, 2006). As such, the accompanying of the investigative agency constitutes an illegal arrest, and the demand for measurement of drinking driving conducted under an illegal arrest constitutes evidence collection conducted without complying with the procedure for collecting evidence under Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act and thus, the admissibility of evidence cannot be acknowledged in the course of a series of criminal procedure conducted without following evidence collection.

In addition, a drinking measuring method under the state of illegal coercion has been measured, and it has been cut off at time and at a place from the state of coercion.

It is not possible to see the core condition of the suspect and from the state of forced conduct.