A. In fact, the vehicle of the defendant who misleads the misunderstanding of the fact was driven by the victim's vehicle and was not sealed by the victim's vehicle or intended to do so;

B. The sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the sentencing unfair is too unreasonable. (The penalty amount of KRW 3,00,000)

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court regarding the assertion of factual misunderstanding, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the course by the vehicle of the victim who was making a show at the time while bypassing his/her vehicle; (b) continued to enjoy the warning, and changed the vehicle from the first to the fourth lane; and (c) at the same time, the Defendant was pushed the victim’s vehicle; and (d) at the same time, the Defendant was making a senior window, and “the

(E) The Defendant was able to take a bath, such as Abamination, and the victim’s vehicle was faced by such an act by the Defendant.

It can be acknowledged that the defendant is proceeding as it is. According to the above facts, by changing the vehicle in operation, which is a dangerous object, to the vehicle line in which the victim is driving the vehicle, the victim was physically injured or damaged by collision with the vehicle of the defendant when the victim is driving the vehicle as it is, and the defendant can sufficiently be recognized that such act was intentionally committed by the defendant. Thus, the above act by the defendant constitutes a special intimidation.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 1990 on the grounds that there was no criminal history is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case was very poor in that it could cause a large amount of accident by using a vehicle on the road where a large number of vehicles pass, and the defendant is the defendant.