However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Since the consent or consent of the other party is the requirement, if the other party receives a voluntary request from the police officer, the other party may refuse it, and the other party shall be free to withdraw from the police office at any time after the voluntary movement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do1240 delivered on August 22, 1997, etc.). B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① a police officer E, etc. was dispatched to the site after receiving a report of 112 by a taxi engineer that “I will not speak about the destination.” A police officer, etc. requested a voluntary movement from a taxi engineer to hear the horse that “I will sell and walk the taxi,” and to confirm the black image of the taxi. ② A defendant was entering the police vehicle in response to a police officer’s voluntary movement request by the police officer, and the police officer was inside the C district, with the knowledge that he could not promptly confirm the black image in the earth, he was sent to the outside of the district, and ③ a police officer requested a police officer to speak the personal information of the defendant outside the district, but the police officer expressed his intention to leave again, disregarding it, and some police officers expressed his will to leave the taxi on his own surface, and the police officer continued to affix the defendant’s chest to the defendant’s identity, and if so, he can find the fact that he continued to sell the defendant’s identity (the defendant’s chest).

The above legal doctrine and the same.