Since the procedure for the arrest of the defendant in the act of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is illegal, the criminal procedure conducted thereafter is no longer effective as against Article 12 (1) of the Constitution, and there is no evidence acquired thereby.

Even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is admissible, each statement of the victims and H during the dispatch to the site was not reliable, and the cross-examination by the defendant was not conducted properly.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts, since there is no evidence to prove the facts charged of this case or it is difficult to view that the facts charged of this case are proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In a case where evidence is collected based on an illegal act that does not comply with the legitimate procedure for the arrest procedure of flagrant offenders, the admissibility of the secondary evidence acquired based on the illegal act should be denied.

However, the above principle of exclusion of illegally collected evidence is to guarantee the fundamental human rights of the people by suppressing an illegal act in the investigation process. As such, evidence collected in a state that the effect of an act violating due process is prevented or extinguished, even if admissibility of evidence is recognized, it does not cause an infringement on the substantial contents of due process. Therefore, there is no reason to deny admissibility of evidence.

Therefore, considering the contents and circumstances of the due process violation and related circumstances conducted in the process of evidence collection, there are other circumstances that can be seen that the illegality elements of the original due process violation and evidence collection act were removed or excluded.