A. Although the victims of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles promised to lease land owned by the victims to the Defendant for an election campaign free of charge, the victim C did not comply with the above promise, and instead did not comply with the above promise even though the victims promised to pay money as a compensation for election campaign expenses. As such, the Defendant sent Kakao Stockholm messages to the victims for the purpose of receiving the said money in a legitimate manner, it does not constitute a threat as to the form of an act of attack, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had an intention to commit an act of attack or to obtain unlawful profits.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on this ground as stated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the relevant legal principles and the evidence, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, comprehensively taking into account the details and frequency of the harm and injury the Defendant notified, the relationship with the victims, the background leading to the crime, the fact that there was no record of the same kind of crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and determined the sentence against the Defendant

The lower court appears to have determined the punishment within a reasonable scope, taking full account of all the circumstances regarding the sentencing, and comprehensively taking account of the records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is reasonable within the scope of discretion.