On February 26, 2013, at around 02:10, the Defendant driven the said car up to approximately 50 meters prior to the 70-4 well-known-gu restaurant at Changwon-si, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, under the influence of alcohol by 0.081% of blood alcohol concentration.

2. At the time of the summary of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion, the defendant was illegally arrested by police officers' psychological coercion despite clearly expressing his intention to refuse the police's voluntary motion.

Therefore, evidence that has been arrested is inadmissible.

In addition, the Defendant did not drive a drunk, and only dices alcohol in the her motherel after driving.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to whether a legitimate voluntary act was committed is clearly stipulated in Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. 1) The investigator’s accompanying the suspect to the investigative agency, etc. in the form of consent obtained during the investigation process is not a way to suppress the suspect’s physical freedom even though it is substantially similar to the arrest, and thus, it is not systematically and practically arbitable from the system, and it is highly likely that there may result in a violation of the principle of the Criminal Procedure Act, such as the provision of various guarantee measures to guarantee rights granted to the suspect arrested and detained under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the suspect was transferred at the regular stage of arrest and detention, and therefore, it is reasonable to view the legality of accompanying only where the investigator knew that the suspect could refuse accompanying the suspect prior to the accompanying, or the suspect could be released from the accompanying place at any time, by the voluntary will of the suspect, only if it is clearly proven by objective circumstances that the accompanying was carried out by the investigative agency, etc. at any time (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do6797, Jun. 307, 2017, 2019).