In addition, the defendant tried to overtake the victim, and in the process, the victim's vehicle is adjacent to the victim's vehicle cannot be viewed as a threat.

Judgment

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court: ① the defendant, at the time, was sent to the victim's vehicle after the victim's vehicle due to abnormal traffic, and there was the victim's complaint; ② the victim's right-hand turn is a road beyond the center line after the victim's abnormal traffic signal was obstructed; ② the road from which the defendant's left-hand turn was sent to the left-hand turn is a three-way road; ② the vehicle should, in principle, proceed to the left-hand turn at the center; and there was no vehicle driving at the time; thus, if the defendant merely passed the victim's vehicle, it would be reasonable to walk to the center line or pass the vehicle by using the first lane; ③ the defendant's access to the victim's vehicle after the left-hand turn, which prevents the victim from driving the victim's vehicle due to the victim's abnormal traffic, and the defendant's intentional act or the risk of the accident is recognized as having been sufficiently aware of the defendant's intentional act.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

The conclusion is.