A. Although the Defendant was operating a bus close to the victim’s driver’s vehicle, the Defendant did not threaten the victim by pushing the bus.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if a special intimidation is established against a defendant for an unfair sentencing, the sentencing of the lower court (a community service order of 2 years of suspended sentence in October and 120 hours of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, which were duly adopted and examined as to the assertion of factual misunderstanding, namely, the Defendant driven a bus at around 18:47 on May 27, 2015, and driven the vehicle at a low speed while driving the vehicle on the two-lanes on the road on the mountain road in the mountain via the river in the river in the mountain via the river in the mountain of the river in the mountain of the river in the mountain of the river in the mountain of the river in the mountain of the river in the mountain of the river in the middle. After changing the vehicle into the two-lane, the Defendant attempted to overtake the said vehicle in the first way after changing the vehicle into the one another, but the victim was unable to overtake the said vehicle in the course of driving the vehicle at a speed, and the said vehicle was clearly identified as a threat to the Defendant’s body at the time of changing the vehicle into the one-lane speed. In full view of the facts charged, the Defendant clearly found that the vehicle in question was a threat to the Defendant’s body.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.