logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.04.28 2015노2201
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The accused of the grounds for appeal has no record of driving under drinking.

In addition, since the defendant was not notified of the notification related to voluntary accompanying, that is, the police officer's request for voluntary accompanying, and that he/she may freely leave the police officer at any time (hereinafter "the notification of voluntary accompanying"), the defendant constitutes an illegal arrest and thus all documents related to driving of drinking of this case prepared thereafter are inadmissible.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of original judgment as to the driving of drinking, it is recognized that the defendant has driven drinking as stated in the judgment below.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates the principle of voluntary investigation as to admissibility of evidence on documents related to drinking driving.

In the form of an investigator's accompanying a suspect to an investigative agency, etc. in the form of obtaining consent in the course of an investigation, since there is no way to restrain the physical freedom of the suspect even though it is restricted and substantially similar to the arrest, it is not possible to guarantee voluntaryness as well as institutionally, and it is highly likely to result in a violation of the principle of criminal litigation law, such as not providing various rights guarantee devices that the Constitution and the Criminal Litigation Act grants to the suspect under arrest and detention on the ground that it is before the regular arrest and detention stage.

(1) Therefore, it is evident by objective circumstances that an investigator knew that he could refuse the accompanying to the suspect prior to the accompanying, or (2) that the accompanying suspect was accompanied by the voluntary will of the suspect solely, such as recognizing that the suspect could freely leave the accompanying place or leave the accompanying place, etc.

arrow