When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. On March 29, 2016, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act: (a) from around 21:23 to around 21:25, the Defendant operated the Brando XG car, thereby proceeding to the Daegu Daegu-gu Highway in the Daegu-gu Si-Eup.

On the ground that the victim C(the age of 31) driven by the Defendant’s vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant already overtakened the Defendant’s low-income car, and subsequently, tried to enter the said Gwangju Daegu Highway along the three-lanes of the said Daegu Expressway, and tried to enter the said area as a rest area for discussion, the Defendant saw the victim’s low-income car into the front area in the direction of approximately 20 to 30 meters of the said straw car and operated three times.

As a result, the Defendant continued or repeated violation of the prohibition of career change and the prohibition of sudden restriction, thereby threatening or endangering others, or causing danger to traffic.

2. Around March 29, 2016, the Defendant, at the access road to the rest area of Gwangju Daegu Expressway as indicated in Paragraph 1, was under driving a dangerous B-G car, as described in Paragraph 1, in the manner that the Defendant was able to see the attitude that the Defendant would inflict a bodily injury on the victim’s life or body by putting 31 years of age in a three-time sudden operation.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Extraction of photographs, and application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing video CDs, among video images;

1. Article 152-2 and Article 46-3 subparag. 5 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of sckless driving), Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of special intimidation), and Article 283(1) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the point of sckless driving), each of the Defendant’s fines did not receive the use from the victim, but the Defendant appears to reflect his mistake as the primary offender, and the sentencing precedent of similar cases, etc