The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it was true that the Defendant committed an offense identical to the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine, judicial police officers did not notify the so-called “the so-called “the so-called doctrine” in the process of emergency arrest of the Defendant, the evidence collected in the subsequent process of investigation is inadmissible as illegally collected evidence.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional charges of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of emergency arrest under Article 200-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act by a public prosecutor or a judicial police officer regarding the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles, it shall mean the summary of the offense, the reason for arrest, and the appointment of a defense counsel.

Such notice shall, in principle, be made in advance before entering the exercise of force for emergency arrest. However, in the event that a person who drives a criminal suspect or who is in opposition against violence is forced to do so by force, it shall be done in the course of putting in or pressure the criminal suspect into force, or where it is not influent, it shall be done without delay after putting in or suppressing the criminal suspect.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7961, Nov. 29, 2007). In light of the above legal principle, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Health Team, the original judgment, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of original instance, namely, ① an emergency arrest assistant I confirmed the defendant at the time of emergency arrest of the defendant at the court of original instance, and notified L mitigation of the principle.

However, the defendant exercised perfect power, and there were four criminal offenders, which led to the suppression of the defendant, and the defendant was seated on the police vehicle.

At the time, it is true that the defendant made a strong resistance and that the suspect was not notified of the final anti-speak doctrine, and it is re-speak in the vehicle.