In a case where the defendant was indicted for violating the Road Traffic Act (driving on a cargo vehicle) on the ground that he driven a cherb while under the influence of alcohol and loaded the cherb on a cargo vehicle, the case affirming the judgment below that the defendant's voluntary behavior against the defendant is legitimate and that the result of the cherbing test conducted after hearing the explanation of the investigation process immediately after the request, inasmuch as the defendant demanded the police station to accompany the police station to take a drinking test and let the police station take the cherb to move the vehicle to the police station.

Articles 44(1) and 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 3(2) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Na Sung-sung

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No2389 Decided February 5, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion that it is not admissible as a result of a drinking test by illegal voluntary behavior

The court below determined that the defendant's voluntary behavior against the police officer was conducted by the defendant's voluntary will, and the result of the drinking test was admissible as evidence, since the defendant requested the police officer to accompany the police station to take a drinking test, and the defendant was on the patrol vehicle while moving to the police station, and requested the police officer to leave the police station immediately after hearing the explanation of the investigation process and demanded the police officer to promptly do so.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legality of voluntary behavior and the rules of law on exclusion of illegally collected evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

2. As to the assertion that the testimony of Nonindicted 1’s witness is inadmissible

The lower court determined that the part of the witness Nonindicted 1’s testimony among Non-Indicted 1’s testimony was admissible when it proves that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state, and that the Defendant driven under the influence of alcohol as recorded in the facts charged, considering the following: (a) the police officer Non-Indicted 1 was called to the site of this case and asked the Defendant questions and answers; (b) the Defendant’s behavior at the time of responding to the question of Non-Indicted 1; and (c) the process of voluntary behavior and the situation at the time of interrogation of the suspect; and (d

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility of evidence when the statement of a person other than the Defendant was made on the date of trial, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by the Defendant.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)