The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the Defendant’s details of the Defendant’s mobile phone use, etc., the Defendant may recognize the fact that he/she resided in his/her domicile on his/her resident registration and received the notice of suspension of driver’s license directly, and even if not, even if he/she could recognize the fact that he/she received the notice of suspension of driver’s license from I that received instead of the notice of suspension of driver’s license, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant

2. As the lower court properly states, the Defendant did not directly receive the notice of the decision on the suspension of driver's license, and I did not receive the Defendant's mail while residing in the Defendant's domicile on the Defendant's resident registration, and stated to the effect that the Defendant did not deliver the Defendant a relatively consistent notice of the decision on the suspension of driver's license to the Defendant in the original court. While the Defendant did not use his mobile phone at the source, the Defendant did not use his mobile phone in his resident registration in his residence, there are only details used in the Nam-gu and Naju, but there is no other additional evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the appellate court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is that the Defendant received the notice of the decision on the

It is insufficient to recognize.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.