The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On January 22, 2017, the Defendant: (a) driven, without a driver’s license, approximately two kilometers from the Do in front of the community center located in the 1st day of Seosan-si, Seosan-si; (b) to the 1853 Eco station in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, Seosan-si; and (c) driven a car cp-free car in its own possession.

2. Determination:

A. The crime of violation of Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act is established only when a driver drives a motor vehicle with knowledge that there is no valid driver's license. Thus, even if the previous driver's license was revoked, it cannot be deemed a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) unless the driver recognizes the cancellation of the license, and even if the competent police authority issued a legitimate public notice in lieu of the notification of the driver's license, the driver becomes aware of the fact that the driver's license was revoked.

In such a case, whether a driver knew of such circumstances shall be determined individually by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the reason for revocation of the license and the seriousness of the illegal act which served as the reason for revocation; (b) the record of revocation of the license for the same reason; (c) whether the license was revoked for the same reason; (d) the reason for not being notified of revocation; (e) the period until the act at issue after revocation of the license; and (e) how the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or systems change during the period of driving in which the license was held by the driver (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6480, Dec. 10, 2004).B)

Even if the phrase “the Defendant was indicated,” the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was aware that the Defendant was aware of the revocation of the license at the time of driving of the instant case.

It is difficult to conclude this differently.