The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A continued or repeatedly committed an act of violation of prohibition of change of course, violation of prohibition of sudden restriction, and violation of method of overtaking on an expressway, etc., the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the fact, thereby threatening or endangering another person or causing danger to traffic.

피고인은 B이 서치 라이트로 반복하여 신호를 보내면서 피고인 차량을 바짝 뒤�아오자 두려운 마음과 안전거리 확보를 하라는 차원에서 워셔액을 뿌리고 B 차량 앞에서 속도를 줄이고 차선을 물고 진행하게 된 것이므로 피고인의 행위는 긴급피난, 과잉피난 내지 정당행위에 해당한다.

The punishment of the court below (the fine of KRW 5,000,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (fine 5,000,000) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence of this case as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the Defendant guilty of the charge that the Defendant’s act constitutes an emergency evacuation, excessive escape, or legitimate act, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s act does not constitute an emergency evacuation, excessive evacuation, or legitimate act, even in light of the Defendant’s running route, driving speed, and traffic situation shown in the black stuff image, etc.

Defendant

A’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination as to the defendants' unfair argument of sentencing, has a unique area of the first instance court with respect to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing