The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles 1) The Defendant committed assault against the victim while the victim’s taxi was stopped for signalling at the time of the instant case. As such, the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes Act”).

(2) Article 5-10(1) and (2) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act does not apply to cases where a driver of a motor vehicle, who is a “motor vehicle during operation,” as prescribed by Article 5-10(1) and (2), commits assault and intimidation against a driver, resulting in an intermediate mediating cause causing specific risks, such as the occurrence of a traffic accident, and resulting in the result, to an unspecified multiple number of unspecified persons. In this case, the Defendant’s act does not meet the elements of Article 5-10(2) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of assault or assault against a driver under Article 5-10 (1) and (2) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act is one of the legal interests protected by the law of establishing traffic order and ensuring the safety of citizens by severely punishing the driver, passengers, or pedestrians of a vehicle in operation by force against the driver of the vehicle in operation. Thus, if the violation of the above legal interests is not expected, such as assault against the driver in a state of parking or stopping without the intention of continuous operation at a place where there is no risk of undermining public safety and order, the crime cannot be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4375, Dec. 11, 2008).