The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is C’s driver of a passenger car with C’s low speed, and the issue of the other D and female issues outside of the instant case, the Defendant re-convened with the aforementioned D and 5 driving day, and accordingly, the aforementioned D and her driving day were driven by the Defendant.

At the same time, the control was required.

On March 24, 2015, the Defendant was requested to measure drinking by G from the police officer G to the F District Office in Sacheon-si E on March 24, 2015.

Defendant 1 driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol as above;

The police officer's demand for the measurement of drinking without any justifiable reason was rejected even if there was a reasonable reason to determine the person.

2. Determination

A. In order to recognize the legality of voluntary accompanying, it should be clearly proven by objective circumstances that an investigator knew that the suspect, prior to accompanying, could refuse accompanying of the suspect, was accompanied by the suspect’s voluntary intent, such as where the suspect, at any time, was recognized that the suspect could freely leave the place of accompanying, or could leave the place of accompanying (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do8890, Sept. 13, 2012). The measure of drinking taken by accompanying the investigative agency, etc. without the aforementioned legality is illegal as it was conducted under the forced accompanying without complying with the procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the defendant did not comply with it.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, voluntary accompanying of the Defendant at the time of the instant case was carried out by the investigative agency, etc., solely by the suspect’s voluntary will.