1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;

3.Provided, That this ruling has become final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely a fact that the victim immediately operated the vehicle by putting the window down on the vehicle operated by the Defendant on his own, and the vehicle has been 1-2 meters away from the snowway.

Therefore, as shown in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not have operated a vehicle continuously 20-30 meters away from the fact that the victim gets off, fastened, and thrown off the window.

In addition, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s act of operating a vehicle was carried with a dangerous object under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act because it is difficult to view the victim’s life or bodily harm caused by the said vehicle operation.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts are (i) the victim made a relatively consistent statement in the investigative agency and the court below to the effect that “the defendant was unable to drive a vehicle by driving the vehicle, and the defendant was then driving the vehicle again, and led about 20-30 meters by driving the vehicle.” The defendant led about 20-30 meters by driving the vehicle.” The witness C’s statement, injury diagnosis statement, photograph and other objective materials are also consistent with this and the credibility of the victim’s statement is recognized; (ii) at the time, C sought credibility in the victim’s statement to seize the Defendant’s vehicle and property with the Defendant’s credit; and (iii) the Defendant continued to drive the vehicle even if the victim obstructed the vehicle, in light of the circumstances where the victim was driving the vehicle to avoid the vehicle with knowledge of this fact.