However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On October 22, 2016, the Defendant provided a shouldered fluor in Seo-gu, Daejeon on the grounds that the Victim E (V, 57 years of age) who is an employee at the “D” restaurant provided a fluorial fluor, and is a person working at a broadcasting station, and written an article on this restaurant.

“Abrying, making soup, making soup and making soup to the victim, and demanding the settlement of KRW 41,000,000, such as the food value of 2 bottled, why why is “huming to the interest of the head of the Dong,” the victim would have to pay the fry money;

The police called the "Worra reported to the police", and the victim had the victim concentrate on claiming the amount of food value, thereby obtaining financial benefits equivalent to the amount of the money.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property benefits by threatening the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution (the substantial damage resulting from the crime of this case is merely a mere delay in recovery of food, as the defendant's mistake is divided, and the defendant has agreed with the victim and paid the full amount of damage after the crime of this case.) is more than 62 (1) of the Criminal Code.