A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant immediately overtaken the bus in order to avoid the vehicle coming from the horse, and only the Defendant made an objection against the victim D by stopping the vehicle at the scene of the disturbance.

Therefore, the defendant did not use the vehicle to threaten the victim, and there was no intention to threaten the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant did not stop the vehicle before the damaged vehicle to make an objection against the victim, and did not have any intention to intimidation the victim or to intimidation the victim.

The argument was asserted.

The court below found that according to the video and voice of bus booms CD, the defendant was forced to stop the damaged vehicle for the purpose of stopping the damaged vehicle by force, and the defendant did not overtake the damaged vehicle two times, but did not overtake it again. In other words, the injured vehicle was forced to stop immediately before the damaged vehicle, and then the damaged vehicle was forced to stop down immediately before the damaged vehicle. The defendant stated that the injured vehicle was forced to stop the vehicle for the purpose of stopping the damaged vehicle by force, and that there was a difference to the extent that the injured vehicle was immediately stopped to avoid collision with the defendant's vehicle, and that the injured vehicle was the main purpose of this paragraph for the victim's main purpose.

Even in the process, it is permissible to allow the victim to feel a risk.