[1] The case where the legality of voluntary behavior conducted for investigation of crime under Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is recognized in addition to voluntary behavior conducted by police activities for the purpose of administrative police pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers

[2] The case holding that, in case where the defendant submitted his base and hair to a police station in the form of voluntary operation for the purpose of medication, and was prosecuted for violation of the Narcotics Control Act by submitting it to the police station in the form of voluntary operation for his base, the police officer requested voluntary operation to a police station on the ground that the defendant's mental condition, body body, plant species, criminal record, etc. at the time of the time on the ground that the defendant's suspicion of narcotics medication was reasonable, and the police officer requested voluntary voluntary submission of urine and hair to the police station at the police station located in the destination where the defendant requested voluntary submission of urines that can clarify the suspicion of narcotics medication to the defendant, and thus, voluntary voluntary operation to the defendant constitutes voluntary operation under Article 199 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it was for the investigation of the suspicion of narcotics medication

[1] Voluntary behavior is conducted by police activities for the purpose of administrative police under Article 3(2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, as well as by the voluntary will of the suspect solely, such as where the investigator knows that he/she may refuse the accompanying of the suspect prior to the accompanying, or the suspect who was accompanied may freely leave or leave from the accompanying place, at any time, for the purpose of criminal investigation under Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[2] In a case where the Defendant was indicted for violation of the Narcotics Control Act by submitting his urine and hair to a police station in the form of voluntary movement with a charge of administering narcotics in the form of a merpopon, the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on voluntary movement of the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s mental condition, body body, plant species, criminal record, etc. at the time when the police officer requested voluntary movement to a police station on the ground that the Defendant’s suspicion of administering narcotics was reasonable, and that the police officer at the police station at the destination at the destination requested voluntary voluntary submission of a urine and hair that can clarify the Defendant’s suspicion of administering narcotics, etc. at the police station at the destination, and that voluntary movement to the Defendant constitutes voluntary movement under Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes an investigation of the suspicion of administering narcotics, etc., and thus, voluntary movement to the Defendant constitutes a police officer’s voluntary movement under Article 3(2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and that the Defendant and the Defendant’s hair submitted in an unlawful detention in violation of Article 6.

[1] Article 3(2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article 19(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 2 subparag. 3(b), 4(1)1, and 60(1)2 of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 3(2) and (6) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Articles 19(1), 218, 308-2, and 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6810 Decided July 6, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1572) Supreme Court Decision 2012Do8890 Decided September 13, 2012

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2019No453, 2054 decided December 12, 2019

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A point of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. due to medication;

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s arbitrary behavior against the Defendant was in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, but the Defendant’s defense and hair submitted in illegal confinement in violation of Article 3(6) of the same Act was an illegally collected evidence.

However, it is possible to conduct voluntary behavior even in cases where the suspect's voluntary will was made only by the suspect, such as where the investigator knew that he/she could refuse to accompany the suspect prior to the accompanying for criminal investigation pursuant to Article 199 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in addition to the police activity conducted for the purpose of administrative police under Article 3 (2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6810, Jul. 6, 2006, etc.).

According to the records, at the time of the police officer's voluntary movement, the police officer determined that the Defendant's suspicion of medication was reasonable and demanded to voluntarily move to a police station on the grounds of the Defendant's mental condition, body, species of alcohol, previous convictions, etc., and requested the Defendant to voluntarily submit the urine and hair to the Defendant at the police station, which is the accompanying place. As such, the instant voluntary movement constitutes voluntary movement pursuant to Article 199 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is for investigating the crime of medication of narcotics. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on voluntary movement, which constitutes the judgment of the lower court, by deeming the instant voluntary movement to be in accordance with Article 3 (2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers.

B. However, the lower court, however, did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the decentralization and admissibility of illegally collected evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, inasmuch as the investigative agency’s failure to prove the existence of such arbitrariness was found to the extent that it excluded a reasonable doubt in light of the relevant legal principles and records, when it seizes the above arbitrari and hairs as voluntarily produced items under Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

C. Ultimately, the defendant's defense and the defendant's hair cannot be admitted as admissibility of evidence. Thus, the court below's error of misapprehending the legal principles on voluntary behavior does not affect the judgment.

2. Points in violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by Possession;

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is a possibility that the Defendant had been kept under custody of some drugs in the past, and that the possibility of having been prescribed for treatment, such as the Defendant’s influence, cannot be ruled out.

B. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Noh Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)