Voluntary behavior should be determined based on objective circumstances by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the time and place of accompanying, methods of accompanying, existence of intent to refuse accompanying, methods of investigation after accompanying, existence of intention to refuse accompanying, etc. (Supreme Court Decisions 93Da3515 delivered on Nov. 23, 1993; 93Da35155 delivered on Nov. 23, 1993; 640, Jan

30. The facts constituting an offense should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act);

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, was conducted by the Defendant without satisfying the requirements for voluntary driving, and was conducted through legitimate procedures.

Recognizing that there is no evidence to prove the facts constituting an offense, the first instance judgment, which determined that there is no evidence to prove the facts constituting an offense, was rejected by the prosecutor’s allegation in the grounds of appeal concerning

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the fact-finding of the first instance court and the lower court, and is merely an error in the determination of evidence selection and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding voluntary conduct and illegal arrest, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

The Supreme Court's decision cited in the grounds of appeal differs from this case, and thus is inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Go Young-young