Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

At around 00:20 on November 8, 2019, the Defendant driven a trop trop tropha car, which led to two-lanes in front of the median-gu of Daejeon, along the median-gu road from the center of the street to the center of the flow-distance distance. On the ground that the victim C (the age of 26) driven by the two-lanes from the center of the flow-distance road, the Defendant threatened the victim by driving a troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke troke, leading the victim to the left side of the victim's car

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

Summary of Evidence

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol on the defendant's partial statement;

1. Report on internal investigation by the police statement of C (specific person under suspicion);

1. Each comparison with the enemy;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing booms and video CDs of the victim vehicle with a black booms

1. Relevant Article 284 of the Criminal Act and Articles 283 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning the crime;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument and the defense counsel asserts that the part of the facts charged in this case that the defendant followed the damaged passenger vehicle and satisfyed the light, is different from the facts, and that the defendant did not have any intention of special intimidation.

2. According to the evidence mentioned earlier, such as the victim's black booms, video CDs, police protocol of the victim's vehicle C, etc., which was duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant sufficiently recognized the fact that the defendant committed the crime identical to the above criminal facts, including the fact that the defendant saw the damaged vehicle into light, and in light of these circumstances, the defendant was prior to the time of the crime in this case.