The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not voluntarily respond to the police officer’s voluntary request for happiness.

In other words, the defendant under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the body at the time can not be classified, could not understand properly the notification about the police officer's voluntary behavior, but could not refuse to accompany and could freely leave the body at any time without properly notifying the police officer that he could not freely leave the body.

Therefore, since the result of the drinking alcohol measurement conducted under such illegal forced conduct and the statement of the defendant, etc. obtained based thereon, cannot be considered as evidence of guilt because they constitute illegally collected evidence, the defendant cannot be punished as the act of drinking alcohol driving.

In addition, the fact that the defendant driving a vehicle is revealed through a series of investigation processes (vehicle inquiry, etc.) due to such unlawful voluntary driving, and the fact that the driver driving a vehicle without a license is also deemed to have no legitimate evidence to acknowledge the guilty.

Therefore, even though the defendant should be acquitted, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

(2) The grounds for appeal by defense counsel are as follows: (a) although there is only the assertion that “the request for the measurement of the relevant person is unlawful,” the summary of the oral argument submitted on August 19, 2015 after the submission period for the statement of grounds for appeal and the submission of the statement of grounds for appeal will be examined to the extent of supplement of the grounds for appeal). (b) In the process of investigation, the determination investigator informed the suspect that he/she could refuse to accompany the suspect while accompanying the investigative agency, etc.; or (c) it is recognized that the suspect could freely leave or leave the accompanying place at any time, and it is evident that the accompanying was made by the investigative agency, etc. by the suspect’

And as above.