A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On June 22, 2014, at around 12:00, the Defendant was driving a three-lane in the direction of the Kimpo Airport as the 4-lane in Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, on the ground that he did not turn on the direction direction, etc. and carried on the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving a clock vehicle in the direction of the Kimpo Airport, the Defendant was driving in the direction of the clock vehicle operated by the victim D (the age of 39) on the ground that he did not turn on the direction direction, etc., but carried on the front of the Defendant’s vehicle.

The Defendant driven a dangerous object, driving a three-lane between four-lanes, and changed the course of the victim's carn vehicle that proceeded along four-lanes, and the victim attempted to change the vehicle to the six-lane line that caused damage to the defendant's vehicle, and threatened the victim by taking the following hubs in front of the victim's vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous goods and threatened the victim with a motor vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on a blackbox CD, a black fluor, a photo-fluor-fluoring, and a quotation;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel as to the grounds for discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the following grounds for sentencing)

1. The main point of the argument is that the defendant and his defense counsel only acted equally on the part of the victim because the victim did not turn on the direction direction, etc., and carried in front of the defendant's vehicle, and the defendant also tried to enter the 6th line to the 6th line in order to move into the 2nd line, and therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of intimidation on the part of the defendant at the time.

2. The judgment of this Court.