The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was found to find a speed detection device in front of the vehicle driven by the victim and reduced the speed, and there was no fact that he was an sudden operation, or a street blocking in front of the vehicle driven by the victim.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined, the court below found the following facts: (1) According to the evidence, the defendant, who was a monetary claim against the victim, was found to have a victim rapidly at the national highway resting area; (2) the defendant, after passing a vehicle driving by driving the victim, had a rapid speed reduced in the future; (3) the victim changed the vehicle due to the change of the vehicle; (4) the victim was aware of the fact that the driver of the front-way vehicle was the defendant by telephone to the person who was in the above action; (5) the defendant was trying to walk the window on the side of the driver's seat of the vehicle driving on the road; (6) the defendant was able to have been aware of the obligation of the victim by the police officer on the day of the accident, and the defendant was able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able by the victim at the time before the accident.