The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In full view of the defendant's behavior and surrounding circumstances at the time of this case, the court below acquitted the defendant of the intention of special intimidation, but there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles concerning the intention of special intimidation.

2. In addition to the various circumstances revealed by the judgment of the court below, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① although the defendant opened a window in the signal atmosphere and opened a face, it is difficult to find out whether the victim was able to take care of the damaged vehicle that was parked behind the defendant's vehicle, and there is no other question as to whether the victim was able to take care of the victim. In addition, the body and body of the victim as shown in the victim or did not act as a threat to the victim, and the time when the victim was faced with the face outside of the window is not approximately 2-3 seconds, and ② the defendant was driving ahead of the damaged vehicle. However, in light of the quantity and degree of speed at the time when the vehicle was driven before the damaged vehicle, the defendant's act of causing the danger of the vehicle going behind does not seem to be urgent, and considering the objective road situation at the time of this case, the speed of the vehicle at issue, and the distance between the victim's vehicle and the front vehicle after the victim's appearance without any special circumstance.

Inasmuch as it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had the intention of intimidation, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, it is true.