The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the part of the facts charged in this case that "the defendant driven a flying car under the influence of 0.123% of alcohol level on the same date and time," the court below found the defendant guilty on the part that "the defendant was found guilty on the part that "the defendant driven a flying car under the influence of 0.123% of alcohol level on the same day," and found the defendant not guilty on the part that "the defendant was under the influence of 0.098% of alcohol level on the same day," which is the relation of the crime, "the defendant was under the influence of 0.09% of alcohol level on the same day". The court below found the defendant guilty on the part that "the defendant was under the influence of 0.0% of alcohol level on the same day." The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that it constitutes an exception to the principle of exclusion of illegally collected evidence, and thus, found the defendant guilty on the basis of evidence and found the defendant not guilty on the part. This judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and affecting the conclusion.

2. Determination

A. On February 3, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around 00:48, the Defendant driven a DNA-learning car owned by H-based company, 10 kilometers from the parking lot adjacent to the Handong-gu in Changwon-si, Changwon-si to the front road of the Defendant’s house located in Jinhae-gu, the same day from around 01:08 on the same day.

B. (1) Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act explicitly states the principle of voluntary investigation. The act of an investigator accompanying a criminal suspect to an investigative agency, etc. in the form of consent during an investigation does not have any means to restrain the physical freedom of a criminal suspect even though it is similar to the arrest in fact, and thus, it is not systematicly voluntary.