A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Although the Defendant refused a police officer’s voluntary accompanying request, the police officer conducted a drinking test by leading himself/herself to the earth station and the police station in the place of detention. Since this is a evidence collected by illegal arrest, the lower court which found him/her guilty of drinking driving and driving without a driver’s license on the basis of the lack of admissibility of evidence.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the drinking driving part

A. In order to recognize the legality of voluntary accompanying, it should be clearly proven by objective circumstances that an investigator knew that he/she could refuse accompanying the suspect prior to accompanying, or a suspect accompanied by him/her could freely leave the accompanying place or leave the accompanying place, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do8890, Sept. 13, 2012). The accompanying of the investigative agency to the investigation agency, when the legality of accompanying is not recognized, constitutes an illegal arrest, and a request for alcohol measurement conducted in an illegal arrest condition was made for the purpose of collecting evidence for the crime of the driving at home. Accordingly, the admissibility of evidence is not recognized based on the examination conducted by the court below based on the following circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2094, Mar. 14, 2013).

1) Police officers received a report from a third party that the Defendant’s vehicle was absent from the between ducts and ducts and sent to the scene of the instant case. At the time of dispatch, the Defendant was on the front line

(ii)..