도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant voluntarily responded to the request of the police officer for voluntary accompanying according to his own will and it is difficult to view the defendant's voluntary accompanying as evidence to be illegally collected, and thus, the admissibility of evidence is recognized. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The decision of the court below is based on the evidence collected in violation of the warrant principle of arrest and detention as stipulated in Articles 12(1) and (3) of the Constitution and Articles 200-2 and 201 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is hard to view that the accompanying of the defendant to the defendant was conducted solely by the defendant's voluntary will in full view of the circumstances, etc., and it does not constitute a case where it is clearly proven by objective circumstances that the accompanying of the case to the defendant was conducted by the defendant. In light of such circumstances, the situation report of the driver's driver who was taken by taking a breath test and the notification of the result of the control of the driving of the breath and the result of the breath test cannot be considered as evidence to acknowledge the defendant's conviction because the admissibility of the accompanying evidence is denied by Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was driven by 0.103% of alcohol content during blood, and the time and place of the driver's report are closely related to the situation.
The principle of exclusion of illegally obtained evidence does not apply because other objective reasons to be assessed are involved.
It is difficult to consider it as an exceptional case.
judgment of this case.