A. Defendant 1) In the course of ascertaining the situation where the victim who driven a vehicle on the side line of a vehicle gets a window and sees the Defendant’s desire to harm, Defendant 1 was also aware of the same situation, and the steering gear was in excess of the right line and did not have attempted to threaten the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by erroneous recognition of the facts, and sentenced the Defendant guilty. 2) The lower court’s sentence (one million won of fine) against the Defendant on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In full view of the fact-finding Defendant’s first two instances, at the time of having followed the broke, the Defendant’s vehicle was located on the front side of the victim’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle was located on the front side of the victim’s vehicle. Although the broke continued to move on the front side, if the Defendant followed the broke, it would have been sufficiently aware that the Defendant could match with the victim’s vehicle located on the rear side. The Defendant continued to follow the broke in the situation where the broke was fluent or no obstacle exists on the front side, it can be sufficiently recognized that there was an intention to threaten the victim with the vehicle, which is a dangerous object to the Defendant. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, including the black image of the victim vehicle that judged the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the Defendant did not turn on the direction of the defect that the victim would drive a retaliation while proceeding in the next lane, thereby reducing the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle and exceeding the tea line.