[1] Whether the driver's license is revoked due to the unpaid aptitude test and a legitimate notice was given in lieu of notification of revocation, but the driver's license is not known (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in the case of driving a motor vehicle even though the driver's license is revoked due to the unpaid aptitude test and such fact was lawfully announced, the crime of driving without a license is established

[1] If a driver's license is revoked due to his/her failure to take an aptitude test, and a legitimate public notice was made in lieu of notification of revocation, the driver's license holder is not aware that the license is revoked and the driver's license is revoked, but the driver'

[2] The case holding that in a case where a driver drives a motor vehicle without an aptitude test even though the driver had the record of cancellation of the license without receiving the validity term and the aptitude test, and even though the license had the record of cancellation due to unpaid aptitude test, if the driver had not received an aptitude test for more than five years, it shall be deemed that the driver was aware of the cancellation of license even if the driver was notified of the cancellation of the license due to unpaid aptitude test

[1] Articles 40(1) and 78(1)3 and (3) of the Road Traffic Act / [2] Articles 40(1), 78(1)3 and (3), and 109 subparag. 1 of the Road Traffic Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2588 delivered on November 8, 1991 (Gong1992, 129)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2002No1321 delivered on July 24, 2002

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. Summary of the facts charged

At around 12:15 on February 10, 2001, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle from the 751-3rd-dong, Yongdong-gu, Daegu Suwon-dong to the front-dong-dong-dong, Daegu-dong.

2. The judgment of the court below

Although the defendant was not subject to an aptitude test and the driver's license was revoked on August 28, 1996 and the revocation was announced, it cannot be viewed that the defendant knew that the driver's license was revoked, even if a legitimate public notice was given in lieu of the driver's license revocation notice, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant knew that the driver's license was revoked and that the defendant was driving even though he knew that the driver's license was revoked. Accordingly, the facts charged in this case constitute

3. The judgment of this Court

If a driver's license is revoked due to his/her failure to take an aptitude test and a legitimate public notice was made in lieu of notification of the revocation thereof, the driver's license falls under driving without permission even if the person who obtained the driver's license becomes aware of the fact that the license was revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2588, Nov. 8, 1991). In addition, in this case, the defendant did not take an aptitude test, and the driver's license was revoked on Nov. 4, 1991. At the time of delivery, the defendant stated that the term of validity of the driver's license was stated as August 27, 1995, and "if the driver's license is not issued within the term of validity, the driver's license is revoked again on Aug. 28, 1996, and the fact that the driver's license was notified due to the defendant's address, but the defendant's notification was not known to the defendant's domicile, and the above notification was made effective from the date of revocation of the driver's license.

Thus, the defendant's driving of a motor vehicle after the driver's license is revoked is not only a driving without the license, but also the defendant's driving of a motor vehicle is clearly stated that the license is revoked without undergoing an aptitude test, and even if the license was revoked due to the failure to undergo an aptitude test, it shall be deemed that the defendant was aware that the driver's license was revoked at the time of the case.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that there was no evidence that the defendant had driven a motor vehicle with the knowledge that the revocation of the driver's license was publicly announced without notifying the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to driving without the driver's license or by violating the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit. The court below cited the court's decision (Supreme Court Decision 92Do3045 delivered on March 23, 1993) on the ground that the driver's revocation of the driver's license cannot be deemed to have become aware of the fact that the driver had revoked the driver's license, but this decision concerns a motor vehicle driving case with the knowledge of the fact that the driver's license was revoked due to a violation of laws or traffic accidents, or

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)