2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are recognized.

(1) At the time of the crackdown on Unlicensed Driving of this case, the Defendant: (a) while driving without the permission of this case, the Defendant got a foreigner registration number in the control police officer; and (b) prepared a voluntary behavior letter at the police station, and submitted it to the police officer in charge, stating it in English in the signature column,

(2) After inquiring of the Incheon Immigration Office, the police officer discovered that E does not have a legitimate status of stay, and the defendant responded to the examination of suspect after clearly expressing the police officer's accurate personal information.

(3) The Defendant consistently stated that “A driving practice was conducted in order to acquire a driver’s license” from an investigative agency to the trial court.

Furthermore, a judicial police officer, who initially investigated the circumstances in which E’s name was entered, received driving education from E consistently from the date of the second protocol of interrogation of the suspect to the court of the trial at the court of the trial, and, at the time of regulating, E knows that his/her foreigner registration number was not in face-to-face, while informing the police officer of his/her foreigner registration number as if he/she was E.

The above contents of the defendant's defense are specific and consistent, and are not specifically contradictory to the course of this case.

B. If so, there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the defendant prepared and exercised a written voluntary action by forging the E’s signature only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.