The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal revealed that the Defendant was aware that the driver’s license was revoked at the time of the instant case due to the fact that the Defendant had undergone the aptitude test of the driver’s license twice prior to the instant case, and that the driver’s license was renewed at the time of the instant case without undergoing the aptitude test at least one year after the period of the aptitude test.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a verdict of innocence against the defendant. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: ① upon the lapse of the Defendant’s test period of driver’s license, the competent police authority sent to the Defendant a letter of conditional revocation of driver’s license due to the failure to perform the aptitude test; and on May 21, 2016, the above notice was returned to the Defendant’s unknown father on May 24, 2016; and the Defendant’s driver’s license was cancelled on July 23, 2016; ② the Defendant obtained the first class ordinary driver’s license on August 1, 1985; ② the Defendant did not have the record of the revocation of the license three times or more after obtaining the second class ordinary driver’s license on August 1, 1985; ③ the Defendant’s conditional revocation notice on the Defendant’s driver’s license was sent to Seongbuk-gu Seoul “D”; the Defendant’s domicile was confirmed to have his father’s her child living at his domicile for 203 years after his death.

The defendant argued that he was aware of the dispatch of the above notice.

There is no evidence to see, ④ After the driver’s license was revoked, the Defendant was under the influence of the instantless driver’s license in the summer.