A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

At around 22:00 on November 12, 2013, the Defendant, while driving a SPcar on the road in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seoul, along three-lanes from the Seocho-gu, the Defendant: (a) caused the Defendant’s rapid change of the lane and interfered with the Defendant’s course by driving a D SPcar on the side of the room from the Seocho-gu to the Gwanak-gu, Seoul; (b) the Defendant threatened the victim by plucking hand hand on the two-lane direction of the victim’s progress, and then threatening the victim’s vehicle by immediately moving the victim’s vehicle immediately above the victim’s vehicle, following the change of the two-lanes.

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim using a passenger car, which is a dangerous object.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation;

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 283 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The range of punishment: Imprisonment for not less than 6 months;

2. Recommendations and sentence on the sentencing criteria: April of imprisonment with prison labor - one year (the selection of a mitigation area among types No. 4 of intimidation).

3. Determination of sentence: A sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, a year of suspended execution of one year, intended to threaten the victim by using dangerous vehicles on the road on the ground of the victim's attitude of driving; and the defendant's vehicle's defect after committing the crime; and the defendant's vehicle's defect after committing the crime; and the defendant's fault is not sufficiently reflected; however, the victim also has entered a high-priced vehicle in the future of the defendant's vehicle by changing the vehicle line in a place where the vehicle line is prohibited; and the defendant's vehicle is in response to the defendant's vehicle's threat operation.