The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant changed the lane to not simply control the bus exclusive lanes, but does not intentionally destroy the damaged vehicle and do not assault the victims.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case by misunderstanding the facts.

(2) The defendant did not state specific reasons for appeal on September 28, 2018 in the appellate brief submitted to the trial court on September 28, 2018; however, the defendant did not state specific reasons for appeal on September 28, 2018.

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant had the negligence of assaulting the victims who are passengers of the damaged vehicle and of damaging the damaged vehicle, taking into account the following circumstances revealed by each black image of the Defendant’s vehicle and the damaged vehicle, the lower court recognized that there was an intentional negligence of assaulting the victims and damaging the damaged vehicle.

1) As stated in the facts of the crime, the Defendant, along with the bypass, made it clear that the horn of the damaged vehicle was sound while driving along the four-lanes after the bypass, and as the horn sound of the damaged vehicle continued two times, the Defendant changed the damaged vehicle driven at the three-lanes by accelerating the speed of the damaged vehicle, and then rapidly lower the speed. (2) The Defendant, while changing the lane, verified the damaged vehicle that had already driven on the part of the damaged vehicle, and confirmed the damaged vehicle that had already driven on the road to return it to the damaged vehicle, and reported the damaged vehicle by cutting off it out of its windows from the beginning immediately before the collision.

3 The situation where the control of bus exclusive lanes is required to change the bus lanes to the three lanes damaged.

However, since the damaged vehicle has already been driving ahead of the Defendant vehicle, it was sufficient for the Defendant to change the lane behind the damaged vehicle, and the length is longer when changing the lane in the future of the damaged vehicle.