1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. At around 18:20 on July 2, 2016, the Defendant was driving on the fourth line in the direction of the city in Busan and Giman-si, as it was located near the public playground (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in the direction of its proceeding, and on the ground that the Plaintiff’s vehicle running on the first lane changed in the direction of its proceeding, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to open and take a window, and stop without complying with it, and the Plaintiff’s first line, “on the second line following the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the first line to the front line, sealed the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the center separation zone, drive the Plaintiff, drive the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and build the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the end of the first line, and opened and stop the vehicle at the end of the first line to the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle without complying with it, and opened the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the end of the first line to the end of the first line, and opened the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the end of the 16th stop and stop.”

B. The defendant is the above A.

On January 19, 2017, the Changwon District Court was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for special intimidation in the case 2016 High Court Decision 201Da581, which became final and conclusive on January 27, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or video of Gap evidence 2 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim

A. The fact that the Defendant at the time of liability for damages threatened the Plaintiff using a passenger car and threatened the Plaintiff by gathering the arms with the chief window of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s operation. As seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant in charge of liability for damages threatened the Plaintiff by taking the arms into consideration

In addition, when the defendant intimidations the plaintiff as above, the fact that he taken the hand, which caused the incombustible tobacco, into the senior window of the plaintiff's vehicle, does not conflict between the parties, and the above fact that the Gap evidence No. 1 is written and the arguments are all made.