The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) even though the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, carried the victim’s vehicle at one time and carried the victim’s vehicle in front of the victim’s vehicle operated in a two-lane, he cannot be deemed to constitute “an act of notifying a person to the extent that it may cause fear,” which constitutes the element of the crime of intimidation, and at the time, the Defendant did not have any intention to threaten the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The first instance court’s determination of the grounds for appeal was clearly erroneous in the determination of the evidence of the first instance, in a case where the appellate court intends to ex post facto and ex post facto review the first instance judgment, although there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of evidence in the process of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and the determination on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be arbitrarily followed without such exceptional circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the first instance court. The court of the first instance rejected the Defendant’s assertion while specifically explaining the grounds for the judgment on the “determination on the Defendant’s assertion” in the item of “decision on the Defendant’s assertion,” and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.

A thorough examination of the above judgment of the court of first instance compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., the defendant's act of changing the lane or cutting the lane on two occasions as stated in the facts charged.