On December 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) driven the said taxi, which is dangerous goods at around 21:30 on December 16, 2017, and was driving the four-lane road in front of the front of the Dong-dong Office in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (b) brought the victim D (34 years old) Ebeh or car on the ground that he interfered with his career; (c) driven the taxi on several occasions on the opposite side and the opposite side of the said beh or car on the ground that the victim D (34 years old) Ebeh or car interfered with his career; and (d) stopped in the vicinity of the night-dong distance; (d) opened the window and made the victim’s wife F (33 years old) the victim and the victim’s wife “the price is deducted”.

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

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial includes not only the prosecutor's burden of proving the facts charged, and the finding of guilt must be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006). Meanwhile, Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act provide that a person who threatens by carrying dangerous objects shall be punished for special intimidation. "Carrying dangerous objects" includes not only the possession but also the wide use of them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do597, May 30, 1997). "Cooperation" includes not only the degree of harm and injury inflicted on the other party to the crime, but also the relation between the perpetrator and the other party's status at the time of such act.

B. In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant’s act, such as the facts charged in the instant case, appears to have caused fear or incomprehion to a certain degree. However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant’s act was likely to cause harm and harm to the victim to the extent that it would normally cause fear required for the establishment of the crime of intimidation, or that the Defendant had a criminal intent to inflict harm on the victim’s life, body, etc. at the time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

1) As long as the Defendant and the defense counsel denies the content of the police interrogation protocol of the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant appeared to have committed the crime, it cannot be admitted as evidence due to its lack of admissibility.

2) Next, the victim submitted a statement to the effect that "the cab of the defendant was driven in scambling and retaliation before the victim's vehicle on the ground that the victim's vehicle was affected by the victim on the day of the instant case." On January 12, 2017, after the instant incident occurred, the police sent a right-hand turn from the G High School on the side of C at the time to the right-hand turn-on, and one new defendant's taxi was coming up to the side of the victim's vehicle, and the two-way speed was set, and the defendant's taxi was driven ahead of the victim's vehicle, and the defendant's cab was driven in the front line with the victim's vehicle at the right-hand speed to the left-hand turn-hand turn, and the defendant's cab was stopped at the right-hand speed of the victim's vehicle at the right-hand line, and then the defendant's vehicle was stopped at the right-hand speed of the victim's vehicle at the front line.

On the other hand, at the time of this time, the victim was driving a vehicle immediately adjacent to the victim's vehicle at the rapid speed of the defendant's cab in the C parking lot, and the accident occurred. The victim was driving a two-lane in front and the two-lane in front of the victim's vehicle at the same speed while the defendant's taxi was overtaking the victim's vehicle immediately adjacent to the victim's vehicle at the same speed, and later, the victim's vehicle was waiting at the front line to turn to the right from the front line, and the defendant was sent to the front line of the vehicle at the front line of the front line, and the defendant was sent to the victim's taxi at the front line of the front line of the front line, and the defendant was not able to walk the victim's window at the front line of the front line of the front line, and the victim was not able to speak the victim's window at the front line of the front line and left the left line of the vehicle.

3) However, according to the CD images containing a length of black stuffs installed on the victim’s vehicle, the defendant’s taxi, who was directly in the direction of the victim’s vehicle from G high school to the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the victim at the time, cab of the victim, who was in the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the victim’s vehicle from the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the victim’s vehicle. After the victim’s vehicle runs along three lanes, while the victim’s taxi overtakes the victim’s vehicle from the left side of the victim’s vehicle, the defendant’s taxi turns the victim’s vehicle from the front side of the vehicle to the front side of the victim’s vehicle, and does not drive the vehicle from the direction of the victim’s vehicle or the vehicle from the direction of the victim’s vehicle to the front side of the vehicle.

In addition, considering the video of the above black CD, it is not clearly confirmed that the defendant left the vehicle of the victim and the defendant's taxi parked in the signal at the front of the night distance intersection in the direction of the victim for a long time after the defendant's taxi passed the vehicle ahead of the victim's vehicle, and the defendant's taxi parked in the second lane and the second lane, and the defendant left the vehicle. Rather, it is not clear whether the victim's wife left the vehicle, and the victim's wife changed the line from the victim's vehicle to the left, and the victim's vehicle continues to turn to the left the vehicle before the victim's vehicle, while the victim's wife changed the vehicle from the first lane to the left in the front of the vehicle in the front of the victim's vehicle, but the victim's wife continued to turn to the left at the front of the vehicle in front of the victim.

Furthermore, while the victim stated that he saw the threat and fear due to the defendant's act of taxi driving and the halking, it is not confirmed that the victim scambling CDs’ images did not have any speech or behavior that makes it possible to know that the victim scam a fear or fear beyond uneasiness and uneasure due to the defendant's act. Rather, the victim did not play or scam due to the defendant's act, and rather, it is confirmed that the victim reported to the police as he scam installed on the victim's vehicle in the black box that he scambling with the victim's scambling that he scam was scambling.

4) In full view of these circumstances, it is difficult for the victim’s statement that seems consistent with the facts charged of the instant case to believe that it is in light of the images of black boxes that are contrary to various parts as seen earlier. Even if the Defendant stops a taxi in the atmosphere of signal at the night distance intersection.

However, even if the defendant merely expressed a bath to the victim boarding a motor vehicle on the side while on board the motor vehicle, it cannot be deemed that the victim has threatened the victim by using a dangerous object. Furthermore, as the victim stated in this court, under the circumstance that the victim did not accurately hear the horses of the defendant at the time, whether the victim heard and understood the above desire of the victim, it would generally be deemed that the victim has expressed a harm sufficient to cause fear to the victim. It cannot be discussed whether or not the victim has expressed a harm sufficient to the extent that it would cause fear to the victim.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.