The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the statement to the effect that the victim "the defendant has consistently overtakened the damaged vehicle by changing the direction of the vehicle, and changed the vehicle vehicle rapidly before the occurrence of the instant case, the defendant seems to have been dissatisfied with the driver's behavior of the victim. After that, it is reasonable to view that the defendant changed the vehicle rapidly in the future of the damaged vehicle without turning on the direction of the direction of the victim is an act of threatening the victim. After the accident, the defendant made a statement to the effect that "the defendant provided the cause" to the victim, it is reasonable to view that the defendant caused the instant traffic accident with the victim's intention of assault and damage to property.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On April 25, 2016, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around 17:21 on April 25, 2016, the Defendant driving a CBS passenger car and proceeding along the outer circular road of Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, with three-lanes from the northwest-dong, to the U.S. surface of the air. While the Defendant changed the course to the old air, the E SP passenger car driven by the victim D(n, 47 years old) was rapidly changed to the Defendant’s future; (b) the Defendant changed the course to the right side; and (c) the Defendant changed to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle to the front part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat; and (d) the Defendant was given the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

As a result, the defendant assaults the victim using a dangerous object vehicle, and at the same time, the above spawn vehicle owned by the victim is about KRW 512,257.