The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal doctrine and mistake, the Defendant changed the vehicle to the fourth vehicle driven by the damaged vehicle for gas filling, and the victim stopped by sounding the horn, and she saw it to the mixed-level, but did not put the damaged vehicle into a tight line or boom it before the damaged vehicle.

Retaliatory driving is repeatedly threatening the other party several times, and the defendant has not been able to take a retaliation against the scambling driver.

The subsequent accident also occurred when the victim tried to overtake the defendant's vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant is not subject to special intimidation.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a crime of intimidation in a judgment of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the act of notifying harm is ordinarily based on language or language, or as a case may, depending on circumstances, give notice of harm and injury (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14316, Jan. 27, 201). The content of harm and injury so notified includes property other than that of body or life. Meanwhile, the intent of the crime of intimidation is not necessary to realize the intention or desire to realize the harm and injury actually notified with the purport of citing the perception that the perpetrator would recognize that it would give notice of harm and injury to the degree (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do546, Aug. 25, 2006). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant tried to enter the 4th line on a taxi, but the victim would not yield the way to the future, and the defendant would make the victim change the course of the victim's vehicle toward the victim's vehicle continuously.