The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) that police officers voluntarily accompanied the defendant constitutes an illegal arrest and thereby, urinology thereof.

Demand and urgent arrest, etc. are also illegal.

Therefore, the judgment of innocence should be rendered on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove the criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below as evidence.

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is clearly proved by objective circumstances that an investigator was accompanied by the suspect's voluntary will of the suspect solely, such as where the suspect who was aware that the investigator could refuse the accompanying of the suspect prior to the accompanying in the course of the investigation, or the suspect who was accompanied could freely leave the accompanying place at any time, etc., was accompanied by the suspect's voluntary intention, the legality of accompanying is recognized.

In addition, the determination on the voluntary nature of the foregoing voluntary accompanying ought to be based on objective circumstances, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the time and place of accompanying, the method of accompanying, the existence of intent to refuse accompanying, the method of investigation after accompanying, and the existence of intent to leave the said voluntary accompanying (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do10518, Dec. 11, 2014). (b) The lower court and the first instance court’s evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the first instance court, in light of the following circumstances: voluntary accompanying and urology

The defendant's assertion is without merit since both requests and emergency arrest are deemed legitimate.

① Police officers belonging to the Msan East East Police Station, including E, D, and G, who obtained intelligence against the Defendant, found the Defendant’s residence at around 12:40 on April 7, 2017.

The defendant, upon the request of the police officer, went to a police station where the police officer went in his/her own residence, along with a vehicle on which the police officer was aboard, and the police officer exercised a tangible power or refused to accompany the defendant.

There is no evidence to view (in the dwelling of the defendant).