beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was arrested of the police officer at the site where the defendant was under drinking driving. Considering the time and place of the defendant's arrest, the defendant constitutes "a person who is ex post facto to commit a crime" and thus, it is legitimate for the police officer who called the scene upon receiving a report to arrest the defendant as an offender in the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act. The result of a drinking test collected in the course of arresting the defendant in a flagrant offender is admissible.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was around 23:30 on August 28, 2013, the Defendant driven a vehicle for passenger use C while under the influence of alcohol 0.141% of alcohol concentration, following around the yellow No. 200, Young-gu, Young-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si before the Yellow No. 1333, Young-gu.
3. Determination
A. Article 211 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for the legality of the arrest of a flagrant offender as a flagrant offender refers to cases where it is evident from the standpoint of the person who arrests him/her that he/she is an offender immediately after the commission of the crime. As such, Article 211 of the same Act provides for a flagrant offender within the original meaning of Article 211(1) and separately provides for a "person who is in the process of the commission of the crime" as the "person who is in the process of the commission of the crime," and Article 211 of the same Act provides for a "after the commission of the crime is completed" in regard to a quasi flagrant offender regarded as a flagrant offender, the term "after the commission of the crime is completed" is interpreted as a "after the commission of the crime is completed" and therefore, the term "after the commission of the crime is interpreted as a "after the end of the commission of the crime," and therefore, it can be deemed a flagrant offender only in cases where it is clearly acknowledged that the person who
Supreme Court Decision 91Do1314 Decided September 24, 1991 and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1249 Decided April 13, 2007