beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the Defendant, as a dangerous object, did not threaten the victim by driving a cussa car, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unreasonable (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order 120 hours, and the lecture order 40 hours).
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant, around October 29, 2016, was found to have tried to change the course to three lanes in the direction of the Han River intersection in the north intersection of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul by driving the Kuscam car in the B owned by the defendant mother on October 29, 2016, and driving the Kuscam car in the direction of the Han River intersection in the north intersection of the Han River intersection. ② The defendant did not yield the vehicle driving by the victim D, who was going on the three lanes, moving the said vehicle to the four lanes after the damage vehicle, or the defendant moved to the four lanes to the damaged vehicle, moving the damaged vehicle to the four lanes, making a stop by driving the vehicle in the middle of the damaged vehicle without a direction, etc. in the front of the damaged vehicle.
In full view of the facts acknowledged as above and the Defendant’s act of stopping while driving a coos car in front of the damaged vehicle, the accident seems to be likely to occur in light of the traffic situation of the riverside north-ro at the time, and the victim made a statement to the effect that it was difficult to cause a traffic accident. In full view of the following, the Defendant’s act of reducing the speed of the victim’s own while overtaking the damaged vehicle, which would not yield the concession, constitutes intimidation as sufficient threat to cause fear to the people, and the Defendant is aware and aware of such harm and injury to the victim.