The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the facts charged in the notice of arrest of a flagrant offender and the time and place interval between the defendant and the time and place at the time of the arrest, arresting the defendant as a flagrant offender even though the defendant cannot be deemed a drunk driver at the time of the arrest, it is unlawful to arrest the defendant as a flagrant offender. The demand for measurement of drinking at the illegal arrest is also illegal. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case in the absence of admissibility by the evidence without admissibility and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for arrest of a flagrant offender, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

The lower court determined and notified the instant case to be tried in accordance with the simplified trial procedure, and sentenced the Defendant to ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, on the grounds that the Defendant was guilty of the charge of the Defendant, following the examination of evidence under Article 297-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the recognition of admissibility of evidence under Article 318-3 of

Although the defendant made a statement that recognized the facts charged on the date of the first trial of the court below, the court below rejected the legality of the investigation procedure and the admissibility of evidence by asserting that the illegality of the arrest of flagrant offenders and the exclusion as illegally collected evidence of the evidence collected under the arrest was made during the trial of the court below. On the other hand, the court below cancelled the judgment of the court below which decided to judge as a simple trial procedure in accordance with Article 286-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act and again examined the evidence.