Therefore, the Defendant, despite the way in which the center line of the yellow-ray is installed, was prohibited from being overtaken into a road of one-lane, and as the case of the collision with the above Bosch Rexton car, threatened the victim by using a dangerous vehicle, which is a dangerous object, by entering the way side of the above Bosch Rexrothton car as if the collision occurred.

2. According to the statement of the victim, the defendant overtakened the victim's vehicle in a somewhat dangerous manner by impairing the center line on the road of the two-lanes of return to and from the time, and thereby, it is recognized that the victim caused the same risk as the accident occurred.

However, according to evidence, there is no fact that the defendant has committed further actions to threaten the victim, such as taking a sudden boom after the overtaking.

② Since there was no conflict between the Defendant and the victim before the instant case, there was no motive for the Defendant to threaten the victim.

In light of these circumstances, although the defendant had been drive somewhat dangerously in violation of traffic laws and regulations, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone is that the defendant was overtaken as above with the intent of threatening the victim.

It is insufficient to view it.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered after the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is not publicly announced pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.