Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Warrantless entry into an open restaurant as lawful consent investigation
Supreme Court, Dec. 11, 2025, 2025Do6752 (judgment)
Case name: 도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May investigators enter a place open to an indefinite number of members of the public by ordinary means, without any physical force or coercion, and look for a suspect there as a permitted method of consent investigation that is not unlawful merely for lacking a warrant, and is the breath test that follows lawful on that footing?
Holding
It may, absent special circumstances. Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act states the principle of consent investigation, and entering a place open to an indefinite number of members of the public by ordinary means, exercising no physical force or coercion and looking for a suspect in an ordinary way is one method of consent investigation, so the absence of a warrant does not by itself make it unlawful. Here the restaurant was open 24 hours, the officers used no force or coercion when they entered and looked for the defendant, and no member of its staff stopped their entry or expressly demanded that they leave, so the officers' entry and the breath test that followed were lawful.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
특별한 사정이 없는 한 임의수사의 한 방법으로서 허용되므로 영장 없이 이루어졌다고 하여 위법하다고 할 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Absent special circumstances, it is permitted as a method of consensual investigation and thus cannot be regarded as unlawful merely because it was conducted without a warrant.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 청주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Cheongju District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
수사기관이 범죄를 수사하면서 불특정, 다수의 출입이 가능한 장소에 통상적인 방법으로 출입하여 아무런 물리력이나 강제력을 행사하지 않고 통상적인 방법으로 피의자를 찾는 등 위법행위를 확인하는 것은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 임의수사의 한 방법으로서 허용되므로
Unofficial English translation
the fact that an investigating agency, in the course of investigating a crime, enters a place to which an unspecified, large number of people have access by ordinary means and, without exercising any physical force or compulsion, locates the suspect by ordinary means to confirm unlawful conduct, is permitted as a method of consensual investigation absent special circumstances, and therefore
Factors
- 위 식당은 24시간 운영되는 식당으로 불특정, 다수의 출입이 가능하고
- 경찰관들이 식당에 출입하여 피고인을 찾을 당시 물리력이나 강제력을 행사한 사실이 없으며
- 당시 식당 종업원이 경찰관들의 출입을 제지하거나 명시적으로 퇴거를 요구한 사실도 없는 점
Unofficial English translation
• The above restaurant is a restaurant operated 24 hours a day, to which an unspecified, large number of people have access, and
• there is no fact that the police officers exercised any physical force or compulsion at the time they entered the restaurant and looked for the defendant, and
• at the time there is also no fact that a restaurant employee restrained the police officers from entering or expressly demanded that they leave
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 6. 15. 선고 2018도2604 판결, 대법원 2023. 7. 13. 선고 2019도7891 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2604 decided June 15, 2018, Supreme Court Decision 2019Do7891 decided July 13, 2023
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2018. 6. 15. 선고 2018도2604 판결, 대법원 2023. 7. 13. 선고 2019도7891 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What would count as the special circumstances that make this form of entry no longer a permitted method of consent investigation?
The retrial judgment of the Cheongju District Court, which will now examine the breath test and the two reports on the law the Supreme Court stated, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 199(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act or to Article 44 or Article 148-2(1)(iii) of the former Road Traffic Act, or a later decision that narrows when entry into an open place counts as consent investigation.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Cheongju District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 23 April 2025 (2024No1758), kept the first-instance acquittal in place. It held that the breath test on the defendant was carried out during an unlawful search and was therefore unlawful, and that the suspect's condition report and the notice of the drunk-driving enforcement result, obtained through investigation that breached due procedure and without the chain of causation being cut, were evidence unlawfully collected and so had no evidentiary capacity; proof of the charge was accordingly insufficient.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the officers' entry into the restaurant and the breath test that followed were lawful consent investigation, so the premise of an unlawful search was wrong. It held that the court below had misread the law on breath testing with a breathalyser, consent investigation and unlawfully collected evidence, with an effect on the outcome, and reversed the judgment, remanding the case to the Cheongju District Court on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A place that is not open to an indefinite number of members of the public, so that entry there is not ordinary entry by an ordinary means.
- An entry in which the officers exercise physical force or coercion when entering the place or looking for the suspect, since the Court relied on the absence of force.
- A case in which the staff of the place stopped the officers' entry or expressly demanded that they leave.
Record verification notes
Set the file against each condition the Court listed: whether the place was open to an indefinite number of people, whether any force or coercion was used, and whether anyone there objected or asked the officers to leave. Then check how the breath test was carried out and on what basis the two reports were admitted, since the court below had denied them evidentiary capacity. This decision reversed and remanded without deciding guilt, so the charge still has to be re-heard.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 수사기관이 범죄를 수사하면서 불특정, 다수의 출입이 가능한 장소에 통상적인 방법으로 출입하여 아무런 물리력이나 강제력을 행사하지 않고 통상적인 방법으로 피의자를 찾는 등 위법행위를 확인하는 것이 임의수사의 한 방법으로서 허용되는지 여부(원칙적 적극) 및 그것이 영장 없이 이루어진 경우 위법한지 여부(소극) [2] 피고인이 술에 취한 상태로 자동차를 운전함으로써 음주운전 금지규정을 위반하여 벌금 이상의 형을 선고받고 그 형이 확정된 날로부터 10년 이내에 다시 음주운전 금지규정을 위반하였다는 도로교통법 위반(음주운전)의 공소사실과 관련하여, 당시 경찰관들은 ‘만취한 사람이 자동차를 주차하고 식당으로 들어갔다.’는 112 신고를 받고 출동하여 식당 정문으로 들어간 후 테이블에 앉아있는 피고인을 향해 곧바로 가 차량을 음주운전해 왔는지 물은 다음 음주측정을 하였던 사안에서, 경찰관들이 불특정, 다수의 출입이 가능한 장소인 위 식당에 통상적인 방법으로 출입하여 아무런 물리력이나 강제력을 행사하지 않고 통상적인 방법으로 피고인을 찾는 것은 임의수사로서 허용되고, 이어서 이루어진 경찰관의 음주측정 역시 적법하다는 이유로, 이와 달리 보아 공소사실을 무죄로 판단한 원심판결에 호흡측정기에 의한 음주측정, 임의수사, 위법수집증거에 관한 법리 등을 오해한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether an investigating agency, in the course of investigating a crime, may enter a place to which an unspecified, large number of people have access by ordinary means and, without exercising any physical force or compulsion, locate the suspect by ordinary means to confirm unlawful conduct, as a method of consensual investigation (in principle: affirmative), and whether, if it is conducted without a warrant, it is unlawful (negative) [2] In connection with the charged facts of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under the influence), namely that the defendant drove an automobile while intoxicated, thereby violating the prohibition against driving under the influence, was sentenced to a fine or greater punishment, and again violated the prohibition against driving under the influence within 10 years from the date on which that sentence became final and conclusive, in a case where the police officers at the time received a 112 report that "a heavily intoxicated person parked an automobile and entered a restaurant," arrived at the scene, entered through the front entrance of the restaurant, went directly to the defendant who was sitting at a table and asked whether he had been driving the vehicle under the influence, and then conducted a measurement of alcohol concentration, whether the police officers' entering the above restaurant, a place to which an unspecified, large number of people have access, by ordinary means and, without exercising any physical force or compulsion, locating the defendant by ordinary means is permitted as a consensual investigation, and the subsequent measurement of alcohol concentration by the police officers is likewise lawful — a case in which the Supreme Court held that, on that ground, the judgment of the court below, which held the charged facts not guilty on a different view, was in error in that it misapprehended the legal principles concerning the measurement of alcohol concentration by means of a breathalyzer, consensual investigation, and illegally obtained evidence, among others
Summary of the holding
[1] 형사소송법 제199조 제1항은 "수사에 관하여는 그 목적을 달성하기 위하여 필요한 조사를 할 수 있다. 다만 강제처분은 이 법률에 특별한 규정이 있는 경우에 한하며, 필요한 최소한도의 범위 안에서만 하여야 한다."라고 정하여 임의수사의 원칙을 밝히고 있다. 수사기관이 범죄를 수사하면서 불특정, 다수의 출입이 가능한 장소에 통상적인 방법으로 출입하여 아무런 물리력이나 강제력을 행사하지 않고 통상적인 방법으로 피의자를 찾는 등 위법행위를 확인하는 것은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 임의수사의 한 방법으로서 허용되므로 영장 없이 이루어졌다고 하여 위법하다고 할 수 없다. [2] 피고인이 혈중알코올농도 0.03% 이상 0.078% 미만의 술에 취한 상태로 자동차를 운전함으로써 음주운전 금지규정을 위반하여 벌금 이상의 형을 선고받고 그 형이 확정된 날로부터 10년 이내에 다시 음주운전 금지규정을 위반하였다는 도로교통법 위반(음주운전)의 공소사실과 관련하여, 당시 경찰관들은 ‘만취한 사람이 자동차를 주차하고 식당으로 들어갔다.’는 112 신고를 받고 출동하여 식당 정문으로 들어간 후 테이블에 앉아있는 피고인을 향해 곧바로 가 차량을 음주운전해 왔는지 물은 다음 음주측정을 하였던 사안에서, 위 식당은 24시간 운영되는 식당으로 불특정, 다수의 출입이 가능하고, 경찰관들이 식당에 출입하여 피고인을 찾을 당시 물리력이나 강제력을 행사한 사실이 없으며, 당시 식당 종업원이 경찰관들의 출입을 제지하거나 명시적으로 퇴거를 요구한 사실도 없는 점 등에 비추어, 경찰관들이 불특정, 다수의 출입이 가능한 장소인 위 식당에 통상적인 방법으로 출입하여 아무런 물리력이나 강제력을 행사하지 않고 통상적인 방법으로 피고인을 찾는 것은 임의수사로서 허용되고, 이어서 이루어진 경찰관의 음주측정 역시 적법하다는 이유로, 이와 달리 피고인에 대한 음주측정은 위법한 수색 상태에서 이루어진 것으로서 위법하다는 전제에서 주취운전자 정황진술보고서, 음주운전단속사실결과통보의 증거능력을 인정하지 아니하고 공소사실을 무죄로 판단한 원심판결에 호흡측정기에 의한 음주측정, 임의수사, 위법수집증거에 관한 법리 등을 오해한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 청주지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Cheongju District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제199조 제1항 / [2] 구 도로교통법(2023. 10. 24. 법률 제19745호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제44조 제1항, 제2항, 제148조의2 제1항 제3호, 형사소송법 제199조 제1항, 제307조, 제308조의2
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger