The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) was intended to match the victim's driver's car with the victim's driver's car by sudden operation of Oralba.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the defendant's intention is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to the indictment in addition to the facts charged under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 40 of the Criminal Act, “B,” and Article 40 of the Criminal Act, respectively, while maintaining the previous facts charged in the first instance. The court granted permission.

In addition, as seen below, the judgment of the court below that only the primary facts charged can no longer be maintained as long as this court found the defendant guilty of the facts charged added in the preliminary charges.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the following paragraphs.

나. 검사의 사실 오인 및 법리 오해 주장에 관한 판단 1) 이 부분 공소사실( 주위적 공소사실) 의 요지 피고인은 2019. 11. 30. 19:15 경 B XQ125D 오토바이를 운전하여 경산시 C 앞 교차로에서 같은 방향으로 좌회전하던 피해자 D( 여, 49세) 가 운전하는 E 액센트 승용차가 서 행한다는 이유로 화가 나, 피해자의 차량 좌측으로 앞지르기를 한 후 피해자의 차량 앞에서 급제동하여 미처 피하지 못한 피해자로 하여금 위 승용차의 앞 범퍼 부분으로 피고인의 오토바이 뒷부분을 들이받게 하여, 위험한 물건 인 위 오토바이를 휴대하여 위...