The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, "one year and six months of imprisonment" in the second sentence shall be deemed "one year and six months of imprisonment."

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As to the illegality of an urgent arrest and seizure of search and seizure, and a vessel investigation, the informant E was investigated as a drug incident at the Pyeongtaek-si Police Station, and the Defendant called the Defendant. The Defendant met E with “I am on the face, so I am only because I am in Seoul, I am on the face, and was urgently arrested the police officers accompanying E.

Although police officers searched the Defendant’s body at the time of emergency arrest, they did not release the Defendant’s keys from the Defendant without immediately release, and found philophonephones on the part of the Defendant’s body located on the part of the Defendant who searched the Defendant’s vehicle and laid the Defendant’s vehicle inside the vehicle (at the time, the Defendant was located on the part of the Defendant, but the police prepared a protocol as if the Defendant was in possession of Party A’s seat outside the vehicle at the time when the Defendant was located on the part of the Defendant). The Defendant and E, however, had a telephone conversation within the detention house only for several months at the time of the instant case, on the ground that the Defendant and E had a face-to-face talked on narcotics at the time of the instant emergency arrest at the detention center, the Defendant and E did not have a situation in which they had a common sense about narcotics. The police statement on E prepared in the police protocol after escape at the scene of the Defendant’s urgent arrest at the scene of the Defendant’s emergency arrest was also called “the Defendant’s drinking or any defect.”

“There is no specific statement concerning the accused’s suspicion of crime except for a statement.”

Therefore, the police officer is deemed to have committed a crime after investigating the criminal charge of the defendant.

If there are reasonable grounds to suspect, the defendant could have been arrested by issuing a warrant of arrest in advance, but only the defendant has a previous record of narcotics and has been investigated as a drug case.

A police officer is a defendant for the sole reason that he/she had a telephone conversation with E.