When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Defendant around April 15, 2015, the same year

9.9. Racing, the same year.

9. Around November 11, 200: (a) the lending brokerage company working by C, called “(State) 119 Syman loan brokerage”, submitted loan-related documents upon request; and (b) the relevant documents were delivered to D by credit business companies through the brokerage of loan brokerage.

The Defendant, upon considering that the credit service company D received the loan from the credit service company that the loan was not made after the document review, had the Defendant take the weak points that the Defendant did not directly affix his/her signature to the “written consent to inquiry into credit information” and had the Defendant gather money.

On March 30, 2016, the Defendant sent a telephone to the victim-based loan mediation 119 Sick-dong and did not directly sign the credit information consent form among the documents necessary for the loan to the said C.

In addition, whether the private document is not forged or not.

In this regard, mental compensation has been changed. 1.5 million won has been demanded as the victim's refusal to pay. However, the victim's refusal to pay.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Each report on acceptance of a letter of apology;

1. Details of text messages;

1. Recordings stating that the defendant's act in the judgment of the defendant constitutes legitimate exercise of rights, and thus, the defendant should be acquitted.

Intimidation as a means of the crime of intimidation refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, and the realization of harm and injury so notified is not necessarily required to be unlawful and is used as a means of realizing a right, even if such threat and injury are not a case where it is used as a means of realizing a right, and if the means of realizing a right exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms, it is established (Supreme Court Decision 193Da9548, Sept. 193).