The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 211 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "a person who is latter to commit a crime" refers to cases where it is apparent that he/she is an offender immediately after the commission of the crime is completed from the standpoint of a person who arrests him/her. Here, "after the commission of the crime is completed," refers to the last and last stage of the commission of the crime, or the last and last stage of the commission of the crime.

Therefore, it can be seen as a flagrant offender only if there is a clear evidence of a crime that a person who is arrested at time or at a place is an offender who has committed a gold-proof crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do1314, Sept. 24, 1991). Moreover, a request for measurement of drinking alcohol conducted in an illegal arrest was made in a series of processes for the purpose of collecting evidence against a crime of drinking-driving. As such, the measurement result constitutes “a evidence collected in violation of the due process” under Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act and its admissibility cannot be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2094 Decided March 14, 2013, etc.). The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning. The lower court determined that even if a police officer’s entry into the hotel without a warrant was illegal to violate the warrant requirement requirement, the admissibility of the so-called illegally collected evidence cannot be acknowledged as evidence, on the ground that: (a) the Defendant was leaving the hotel room at the hotel after a lapse of about one hour from the time to the point of a drunk driving; and (b) the Defendant cannot be viewed as a flagrant offender because there is no clear evidence as to the fact that the Defendant was a criminal who committed a crime in time or at a place.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment is a flagrant offender.