The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to avoid the procedure to obtain a court’s warrant, the misunderstanding investigation agency confiscated a defense from the defendant under the name of the purpose of medical treatment and voluntary submission. Such seizure procedure violates due process.

Therefore, the list of seizure, the protocol of seizure, and the appraisal of narcotics according to the above seizure procedure are inadmissible as evidence collected, and there is no evidence other than the confession of the defendant, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty should be pronounced not guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment and one hundred thousand won of additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “A prosecutor or judicial police officer may seize a criminal suspect, other valuables left by a person, or articles voluntarily submitted by the owner, possessor, or custodian without a warrant.”

"A person who is or was an attorney-at-law, patent attorney, notary public, certified public accountant, certified tax accountant, public accountant, scrivener, doctor, herb doctor, dentist, pharmacist, pharmacist, pharmacist, pharmacist, midwifery, nurse, or religious functionary employee" in the main sentence of Article 112 of the same Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 219 of the same Act, may refuse seizure of articles held or kept by a person entrusted in the course of his/her duties and which are related to secrets of others.

The Criminal Litigation Act and other statutes do not have any special procedural limitation on the procedure of seizing blood collected by medical personnel for the purpose of treatment for the purpose of investigation. Thus, in a case where a medical personnel arbitrarily submitted the blood of a patient collected for the purpose of treatment to an investigation agency, the use of such blood evidence infringes upon the patient’s privacy and other personal legal interests.