A. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below against Defendant A is too unhued and unfair.

B. As to Defendant B, Defendant B conflicts with the vehicle driven by Defendant A on purpose with dolus negligence.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. In this case against Defendant A, it is recognized that the above Defendant rapidly changed the lane without turning on direction direction direction, etc. in the direction of the damaged vehicle in the expressway tunnel and threatened the victim, and that the crime is bad, and that it was not agreed with the victim.

However, it is also recognized that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the crime of this case, there is no criminal record, the prevention of recidivism, and the 6th degree of visual disability.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the fact that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged in this case on the ground that “the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the criminal intent of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it,” on the basis of the detailed circumstances stated in the “not guilty part of the judgment.”

In a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit. Thus, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not applicable.