The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court acquitted a police officer on the ground of appeal on the ground that a police officer’s request for the measurement of alcohol was illegal, such as failure to notify the person who was illegally arrested.

However, the arrest of a lawful flagrant offender was made by notifying the defendant as a flagrant offender at the time of the arrest of the defendant as a flagrant offender.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lawful requirements for the arrest of flagrant offenders without examining and examining evidence.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case, the court below's assertion of innocence on the grounds that the defense counsel did not notify the principle of disturbance at the time of arrest in the act of crime during the trial date, and the court below's verification of the CD video and audio files of USB also recognized the fact that the legality of arrest was verified, such as whether the court below's notice of the principle was given.

Since the burden of proof for the facts charged is to be borne by the prosecutor in the major criminal trial, the court below's decision that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was duly adopted and investigated and that it was illegal arrest, it cannot be said that there was an error of incomplete examination and examination of evidence on the ground that the court below did not conduct additional investigation on the above issues ex officio.

B. The lower court stated that ① on August 24, 2012, the Defendant arrested the flagrant offender as a flagrant offender on or around 22:20, and ② the arrest letter of a flagrant offender stated that “the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender suspected of failing to comply with a drinking-free measure after notifying the American Principles, etc.” However, the Defendant did not affix a written confirmation, ③ cannot be deemed to have notified of the anti-finite principle as a result of the verification of the CD video files and the USB voice files that contained the circumstances before and after the arrest of a flagrant offender; ④ there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant notified the anti-finite principle without delay after the suppression of the Defendant; ⑤ it appears that the Defendant’s family members were not informed of the arrest of a flagrant offender.