The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant tried to drive a damaged vehicle by mistake of facts, but the victim continued to drive away and prevented the front of the vehicle.

When the defendant completed almost the left-hand turn of the vehicle, the victim left the front to prevent the progress of the vehicle of the defendant.

The defendant's vehicle did not knee the victim's knee, and the defendant did not have any intention to shock the victim.

The judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant in the judgment of misunderstanding of facts also asserted the same purport as the argument of misunderstanding of facts, and the court below rejected the above argument by making a detailed statement of the decision.

In light of the circumstances duly explained by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant attempted to make a left-hand turn to the left-hand turn of the defective vehicle in front of the Defendant vehicle, the victim was driving the vehicle along with the Defendant’s vehicle to take the front side of the vehicle while driving the vehicle at the back of the damage of the vehicle, and the Defendant was still unable to complete the internship completely, and the victim was running the vehicle toward the front side of the vehicle to take the front side of the vehicle, while the victim was running the vehicle toward the front side of the vehicle to take the front side of the vehicle, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, while recognizing that the Defendant could cause the shock of the victim who was running the vehicle to the front side of the vehicle in front of the front side, where he speeds the vehicle.

As at the time of the crime of this case, at least the defendant had an incomplete intention to commit special assault, the judgment of the court below, which is consistent with this conclusion, is correct, and there is a defendant.