The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The result of drinking alcohol measurement against the defendant by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is admissible as it is due to a police officer's illegal voluntary accompanying.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that voluntary accompanying of the defendant is legitimate and found guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of four million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. On April 19, 2015, the Defendant driven Ctra XG vehicles at approximately 500 meters from the front day of the current child care center located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, about 43-13, in the state of alcohol leveling 0.156% of alcohol level among the blood transfusion around 02:57, to the front day of the children's large park located in 295 to about 50 meters from the front day of the current child care center located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the police officers dispatched at the time did not go to the district by putting the Defendant on the patrol vehicle by force by exercising physical power; (b) the Defendant did not demand a discharge within the patrol vehicle in the Do, which was going to the district; and (c) the Defendant sent the house to the house during the investigation, even though he was under the investigation.

In full view of the fact that there was no active request from high-ranking police officers, and that police officers seem not to have been in action against their will, the facts charged in the instant case were found guilty on the ground that voluntary accompanying to the Defendant was lawful by the Defendant’s voluntary will.

(c)

However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant for the following reasons.

1) Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is to achieve the purpose of investigation.