도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal at the time of the instant case: (a) at the lower court, the police officer G testified to the effect that “six persons, including the Defendant, were forced to voluntarily act in the F district at the scene of assault, and did not directly notify the Defendant; (b) other police officers, who were dispatched, divided the team and notified each of the suspects of voluntary behavior.” (c) the Defendant was given testimony to the effect that, upon preparing the documents within the district and making a repeated notification, the Defendant would leave the district, while leaving the district, the Defendant would leave the district; and (d) the Defendant testified to the effect that “the Defendant was drafted in the form of refusal to affix a seal to the written consent form of voluntary behavior against the Defendant; and (e) stated such circumstance in the form of an investigation report at the time of the instant case; and (e) the Defendant did not raise any objection against the process of accompanying the F district after the instant
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the lawfulness of voluntary behavior and other factors, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, while making detailed statements, such as the legal principles on the legality of voluntary driving, the illegality of alcohol measurement in the state of compulsory driving without complying with the procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act, and the witness G’s statutory statement in the lower court alone, that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant could refuse voluntary driving at the time of the instant voluntary driving; that the voluntary driving agreement prepared in the form of refusal to affix seals referred to in the aforementioned testimony was not submitted; and that G was given a notice that he may freely withdraw at any time when he voluntarily accompanys the Defendant after the instant voluntary driving and the request for alcohol measurement was made once.
The court below held.