The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) Since a drinking test was conducted on the basis of an illegal voluntary conduct, it is not admissible as evidence collected as the circumstantial statement, investigation report, report on detection of the drinking driver, and the result of the drinking control.

② The final drinking time is not 02:30 minutes, but 04:24 minutes, and there is a possibility that the blood alcohol concentration has risen, and it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.1% or more at the time of driving.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden and probative value of proof in the criminal trial, the legality and burden of proof, and the rules of exclusion of illegally collected evidence.

2. Determination

A. ex officio determination, the court below, after withholding the adoption of evidence with respect to “the circumstantial statement of the principal driver, investigation report (report on the circumstances of the principal driver),” and concluded the examination without going through the examination of evidence. This constitutes “when there is a violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the examination of evidence affecting the judgment,” and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.”

B. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion 1) Determination on the illegality of voluntary conduct (A) Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act specifies the principle of voluntary investigation.

In order for investigators to accompany a suspect to an investigative agency, etc. in the form of consent in the course of an investigation, since there is no way to suppress the suspect's physical freedom because it is restricted and substantially similar to the arrest, it is not possible to guarantee the decentralization as well as institutionally, and it is not possible to guarantee the right to the suspect who has been arrested and detained by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is before the regular arrest and detention stage.