A. At the time of the misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant had no intent to take retaliation against the victim, and the Defendant did not act as a threat to the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the mistake of facts among the grounds for appeal.

As to this, the court below rejected the defendant's above assertion by taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment and finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

1) According to the black image of the damaged vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle entered the opposite lane beyond the center line of the yellow-ray yellow-line in the vicinity of the TWridge, and it can be recognized that the damaged vehicle was parked in the future of the damaged vehicle beyond the center line after overtaking the damaged vehicle.

2) 피고인은 항소 이유를 통하여, 당시 교통 체증으로 인해 차량의 진행이 더뎠기 때문에 피해차량의 앞으로 끼어들었다는 취지로 주장하였으나, 그러한 이유로는 피고인의 차량이 피해차량의 앞에서 갑자기 정차한 사실을 설명할 수 없다.

3) In the investigation process by the Defendant himself, the victim was found in the three distances from the long port community service center, and the victim was found to have expressed his desire to do so, and the damaged vehicle will be left in the vicinity of the three-distance wing bridge in the future.