The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 18:15, the Defendant: (b) driven a D AFM5 vehicle at the intersection of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, through the intersection in the direction of Yongsan-gu, along the intersection; (c) obstructed the victim’s right side of the vehicle from the first line that the victim driven on the right side of the road in front of the Yongsan-gu, while driving on the right side of the vehicle in front of the road in front of the Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul; and (d) threatened the victim by driving the DFM5 vehicle at the intersection in the direction of Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul; and (d) threatening the victim by placing the window of the driver’s seat on the floor of the vehicle in front of the Yongsan-gu, the vehicle in front of the 24-gu Industrial High School in front of the vehicle in front of the traffic signal twice.

2. According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the fact that the defendant resisted with the victim's driver's seat in a vehicle parked in the signal line is recognized.

However, according to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged, and the defendant's act of resisting the victim at the time when the defendant resisted the victim, namely, the background or process of resisting the victim, the method and attitude of the defendant's resistance, the defendant's attitude and response to the situation at the time when the defendant resisted the driver's seat, and the victim's investigation agency and the statement in the court. In light of the above circumstances, the defendant's act of resisting the victim's driver's seat at the time when the defendant resisted the victim's seat with a signal, it is judged that the defendant's act of resisting the victim's driver's seat at the time when the victim's driver's seat was stopped or caused the danger and injury to the victim's prior driving during the course of the port, and the act alone cannot be deemed as threatening the victim.

Furthermore, there is also evidence to view that the defendant threatened the victim with a threat of harm and injury in the process of the instant clause.