A. In fact, the Defendant did not intend to threaten the victim by preventing the victim C from proceeding with the vehicle at the time of the instant case.

B. Sentencing 1 Sentencing 200,000,000 won, which is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (i) The act of notifying harm in the crime of intimidation in the crime of intimidation is ordinarily based on ordinary language or language, or, depending on circumstances, may give notice of harm (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14316, Jan. 27, 2011). The content of harm and injury so notified includes property other than that of body or life. Meanwhile, the intent of the crime of intimidation is not necessary for the actor to recognize that the perpetrator would recognize that the perpetrator would give notice of harm and injury, and the intention or desire to actually realize the harm and injury so notified is not necessary (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do546, Aug. 25, 2006), which is recognized by the first instance court lawfully adopted and investigated by the first instance court, since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant had given notice to the victim and changed the course rapidly as stated in the facts charged in this case, and thus, the defendant's assertion that the crime of intimidation had been stopped can not be justified.

㈎ 피고인은 편도 3 차로 중 2 차로를 따라 진행하던 중 3 차로로 갑자기 진로를 변경하였고, 이에 위 3 차로를 진행하고 있던 피해 자가 사고 발생의 위험을 느끼고 급제동하면서 피고인에게 항의하는 의미로 2~3 초 가량 상향 등을 켜고 경적을 울렸다.

In spite of the absence of a vehicle on the front side, the Defendant reduced the speed in front of the victim's vehicle and operated the vehicle.

㈏ 피해 자가 위와 같이 제동하는 피고인의 차량을 피해 2 차로로 진로를 변경하자, 피고인은 다시 방향지시 등을 켜지 아니한 채 1m 이내 거리에서 피해자의 차량 앞으로 진로변경을...