The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On January 13, 2017, the Defendant, at around 450 meters from the road of the 82-4 Sinposi-ro, J. 16:40 on the day before the K.S. Sinposi-ro, 82-4, driven again, through the 148 Sinposi-ro, Sinposi-ro, Sinposi-ro, and without the driver’s license (special license) for the vehicle driving at approximately 450 meters from the end of the 1450-meter K. Sinpo-si.

2. The Defendant denies the fact that he had not driven the towing vehicle at the time and place indicated in the facts charged. Thus, the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant denies its contents in this court. The Defendant does not consent to it as evidence, and there is no data to recognize its identity with the original. Of smart citizen's information (traffic violation report) and investigation report (netly 6), the part indicated in paragraphs 1 through 3 in this case is not admitted as evidence, and it is not possible to use it as evidence, since the Defendant did not consent to it as evidence, and there is no signature or seal of the person who made the statement.

Next, it is difficult to believe in light of the witness witness D’s legal statement that the protocol of interrogation of the defendant in the prosecution against the defendant, which is the purpose of confessioning the facts charged, is insufficient to recognize that the defendant driven the towing vehicle at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. The instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered after the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.