The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not turn on the direction direction, etc. in a considerable section, and the Defendant was able to change the course of several times and rapidly interfered with the operation of the damaged vehicle.

The defendant's operation method is sufficiently recognized as intention to threaten the victim's vehicle.

2. Determination

A. As to the facts charged in the instant case at the time of the trial, the prosecutor’s amendment of the indictment constitutes a violation of the Road Traffic Act, Article 151-2(3) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 151-2 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 46 of the indictment as follows.

C. (1) As stated in paragraph (1), an application for changes to a bill of amendment was filed with the court for the preliminary addition, and this court permitted the amendment, thereby changing the subject of the judgment.

However, the prosecutor's assertion that the prosecutor's mistake of the facts charged prior to the amendment (it was changed from the trial to the primary facts charged) is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined first and then examined the ancillary facts.

B. Judgment 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts as to the primary facts charged . The defendant in the summary of the factory laboratory is a person who drives a "c white" car.

On February 21, 2017, the Defendant driven the above car at around 22:25, and proceeded along three lanes in front of the bus stop located in the Nampo-dong, Nampo-gu, Busan, and changed the way to the right-hand four-lane, and thereby, the Defendant threatened the victim by carrying the above vehicle, which is dangerous goods at approximately 320 meters at the entrance of the bridge at the right-hand side of the victim D (48 cc) driving along the four-lane from the right-hand side of the traffic of the victim D(48 cc) where the vehicle was in operation along the four-lanes, and made a warning.

2) Although the lower court determined that the Defendant 2 times as stated in the facts charged, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the Defendant’s 2nd class, and 2nd class, as indicated in the facts charged.