The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol content of around 13:15 on August 27, 2016, driven a C Kawn vehicle at a distance of about 3 meters on the front of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, under the influence of alcohol content of around 0.246%.

2. According to the witness E’s legal statement and the third public trial protocol, the above witness, who was dispatched to the scene of the case after receiving a report, moved the police box in the form of voluntary accompanying with the defendant for the purpose of measuring alcohol consumption to the defendant, and then taken a drinking test to the defendant at a certain point. Even according to all evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the above witness’s legal statement, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was accompanied solely by the F police box by his voluntary will, and there is no proof otherwise to prove that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the defendant.

( rather, according to the description of the consent letter of voluntary accompanying and the recording of the witness E’s statement in the third trial protocol, the Defendant refused to affix a seal to the consent letter of voluntary accompanying, and it is recognized that the Defendant refused the request of the witness who is a police officer for accompanying.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6717 Decided June 30, 201 (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6717, Jun. 30, 201). Accordingly, since the aforementioned voluntary accompanying constitutes an illegal arrest and the result of measurement of drinking conducted in an illegal arrest constitutes “Evidence collected without due process” as prescribed in Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, all reports containing the result of measurement of drinking alcohol and all other reports containing the result of measurement of drinking alcohol are inadmissible (see Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do1162, Dec. 13, 2012; 2010Do2094, Mar. 14, 2013). Thus, there is no evidence supporting the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol content 0.246% while driving alcohol.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, they are acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.