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

The Defendant driven a BM7 car volume.

On March 8, 2018, the Defendant driven the above vehicle at around 09:40 on March 8, 2018, driving the above vehicle, driving the two-lanes in front of the school site located in the city of the Seocheon-gu Busan, Busan, in the direction of the school site from the intersection to the 3-lane in the direction of the school site, and driving the vehicle into the intersection in the direction of the school officer's direction at the three-lane in the same direction, the Defendant saw the Defendant to threaten the victim C (Nam, 37 years of age) who was at the right angled in the direction of the school officer's direction at the time when the vehicle in the victim C (Nam, 37 years of age), who moved into the one's lane in the direction of the school officer's direction at the time of moving into the one's lane, with two

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant intentionally stopped the vehicle in front of the victim’s vehicle for the purpose of threatening the victim’s vehicle, which is a dangerous object, and intentionally stopped the vehicle two times, thereby causing any harm to the victim’s body, and threatened the victim. As a result, as a result, the Defendant did not avoid a sudden stop of the victim’s vehicle, and caused the damaged vehicle to conceal it again, thereby damaging the property amounting to KRW 970,200 for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. On-site photographs, photographs of the vehicle involved in the accident, quotations, and one CD-recording (the defendant and the defense counsel shall use the IM7 car quantity operated by the defendant (hereinafter referred to as “on-site vehicle”).

) A dangerous thing under Article 284 of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed as a dangerous thing under Article 284 of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant’s sudden stop of a sea-going vehicle by playing on the wind that 4-5 consecutive blastss, and did not immediately stop for the purpose of threatening the victim. Thus, the Defendant at the time asserted that there was no intention of special intimidation. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that there was no intention of special intimidation, and the following circumstances, i.e.,, the Defendant’s low-speed vehicle (hereinafter “victimd vehicle”).

The vehicles of this sea shall be excavated.