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 voluntary behavior against the Defendant was in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and that the Defendant’s defense and hair submitted during illegal confinement in violation of Article 3(6) of the same Act was illegally collected evidence.

However, it is possible, in addition to the police activities conducted by police officers for the purpose of administrative police under Article 3 (2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, even if an investigator knew that he/she may refuse to accompany a suspect prior to being accompanied for criminal investigation pursuant to Article 199 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, or it is recognized that the suspect who has been accompanied could freely leave the place of accompanying or could leave the place of accompanying at any time by his/her voluntary will.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6810 Decided July 6, 2006, etc.). According to the records, the police officer requested a police station to voluntarily act on the grounds that the defendant's mental condition, physical body increase, and the defendant's suspicion of administering narcotics, etc. is reasonable, on the grounds of the defendant's physical condition, his own country, the species of alcohol, and his previous offense, etc., and the police station, which is the accompanying place, demanded the defendant to voluntarily submit urines and hairs that can reveal the suspicion of administering narcotics.

Thus, the voluntary behavior of this case constitutes voluntary behavior under Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is for the investigation of narcotics suspected of medication.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding voluntary behavior, which constitutes a police officer’s voluntary behavior under Article 3(2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers.

B. However, the lower court denied the voluntariness of submission when the investigative agency seizes the above instigations and hairs as voluntarily produced items under Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act.