The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In full view of the evidence, such as the victim’s statement with credibility of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the facts charged of the instant case is found guilty.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment, based on the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, found that it is difficult to believe the victim C’s statement and, based on all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it was proven without reasonable doubt that the Defendant threatened the victims by a passenger car.

For reasons that it is difficult to see that the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, acquitted.

B. However, considering the following facts and circumstances, the Defendant’s statement of the victim C (hereinafter “victim”) by the witness witness C (hereinafter “victim C”) is sufficiently reliable and, rather, the Defendant’s lawsuit denying the facts charged is difficult to believe. In full view of the victim’s statement and the lawful evidence submitted by the prosecutor at the lower court and the first instance court, the instant facts charged that the Defendant threatened the victims by driving a car are sufficiently convicted.

The prosecutor's argument pointing this out is with merit.

1) The victim consistently made a statement from the time when he reported the crime immediately after the instant case to the court of the original trial and the court of the first instance regarding the following facts: “The Defendant’s vehicle operation up to the front of the Marart and threatened the victim G with her and her dependent.” (The lower court pointed out that only the victimized person was specified as the victim at the time of the first indictment, and that only the victim G was added by the victim’s ancillary to the victim’s wife through the modification of the indictment. However, the victim was the victim from the time of the investigation prior to the prosecution to the prosecution.