The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the court below determined that the defendant was a drunk driver based on the secondary evidence obtained through illegally collected evidence or illegally collected evidence based on the defendant's statement without notifying the right to refuse to make a statement, and even if the admissibility of evidence adopted by the court below is recognized, such evidence shall be based on the confession of the defendant and shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt under Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Although the Defendant did not actually drive alcohol, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact.

2. The Defendant argued to the same effect in the lower court.

The evidence presented by the court below, which found the defendant to be inadmissible, among the evidences presented by the court below, was written by the police officers investigating the accident of this case after measuring the blood alcohol level of the defendant, or by reporting on the site or original report, and did not contain the statement of the defendant.

Even if police officers called to the scene of the instant accident and asked several questions to the defendant in the course of ascertaining the situation, it cannot be readily concluded that police officers recognized the Defendant as having committed a crime under drinking alcohol and started the investigation to have been in the status of a criminal suspect. Although police officers could initiate the investigation against the Defendant, it does not seem that police officers had the intent to avoid notifying the Defendant of the right to refuse to make statements even though they did not have the intent to evade the notification of the right to refuse to make statements. Thus, even if the Defendant stated without notifying the right to refuse to make statements,

In addition, in the case of this case, the confession of the defendant does not correspond to the case where the confession is disadvantageous to the defendant, and the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence are stated in detail by the court below.