The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) of the victim's vehicle screen image in which the situation at the time of the instant case was taken, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed a violation of prohibition of change of course under the Road Traffic Act, a violation of overtaking method, a violation of the prohibition of rapid expulsion, or a violation of the prohibition of follow-up restriction, and repeated the act of sudden restraint, thereby threatening the victim and causing danger to traffic.

2. Determination

A. The lower court held that (a) the instant road is a section which combines two immediately preceding lanes, and thus, the victim’s vehicle driven on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle at a place where two horizontal two vehicles can be operated in a lump sum, is considered to reduce speed due to buses stopping on the right side of the road, and the Defendant’s vehicle appears to go ahead of the victim’s vehicle depending on the flow of traffic, thereby violating the overtaking method as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act.

In light of the speed and distance of the Defendant’s vehicle and the victim’s vehicle at the time of image display, the driver of the vehicle, etc. under Article 46-3 of the Road Traffic Act, in consideration of the speed and distance of the vehicle and the victim’s vehicle, shall not be deemed to have violated the duty of prohibition of reverse driving since the Defendant’s vehicle was turned down temporarily, but the Defendant’s vehicle did not have any inevitable reason to have been confirmed, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have violated the duty of prohibition of reverse driving because it did not have any other obligation of prohibition.

1..