The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The execution of a search and seizure warrant against the Defendant’s defense by misapprehending the legal doctrine is unlawful.

Therefore, the defendant's defense and hair, and the evidence collected based on it are the secondary evidence of illegally collected evidence or illegally collected evidence and can not be used as evidence of conviction.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy (one year of imprisonment and additional collection).

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, Article 120(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to search and seizure by an investigative agency pursuant to Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act, provides that “the execution of a search and seizure warrant may open or take other necessary measures,” and Article 140 of the same Act provides that “the physical examination, autopsy, grave excavation, destruction of things, or other necessary measures may be conducted in the course of inspection.” Here, “necessary disposition” should be interpreted as a disposition necessary to facilitate search, seizure, inspection and verification in advance or in the course of execution and to secure its execution. Whether it is necessary should be determined by taking into account all circumstances, such as the grounds for the search and seizure inspection, relevance with the search and seizure inspection, relevance with the search and inspection, urgency, etc.

2) In light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the execution of a warrant of search and seizure against the Defendant is lawful, in light of the following facts: (a) the grounds for search and seizure inspection; (b) relevance to search and seizure inspection; and (c) urgency; and (d) the necessary disposition for the execution of the warrant was conducted in a reasonable manner within the extent necessary for