However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

around April 2007, the Defendant appeared as a witness of the victim C (V, 57 years old)’s civil trial and asked the victim to have testified KRW 50 million in return for the victim’s testimony, and the victim refused this, while the Defendant was crypted;

1. At around 08:00 on July 25, 201, the victim’s house located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, demanding the victim to make a favorable statement in the above civil procedure trial, demanding KRW 100 million to the victim, and threatening the victim by saying “I will not keep the victim without giving the payment.”

2. Around 13:00 on July 30, 201, the victim expressed to the victim that “at least 50 million won as a consideration for the testimony, the victim’s desire to “at least 13:0 years old, how they are following the age and age of older persons,” and intimidation the victim by stating that “at least 50 million won as a consideration for the testimony is not to be given.”

3. Around 14:00 on July 31, 201, the victim threatened the victim with the victim at the living room described in paragraph 1, stating that the victim refused the request and thereby, he/she would not have any longer any longer than 50 million won.”

4. According to the testimony of the 3.3 million won witness C at the bar’s expense at the expense of the victim at a cafeteria of the place specified in paragraph (1) of this Article as of October 201, 201, the “five million won” stated in this part of the facts charged in the indictment appears to be erroneous.

Even if the above error is corrected without changing the indictment, the object of the dispute is whether the attorney's fee was required at the date and time as stated in the ruling. Therefore, even if there is a somewhat difference in the amount requested, it is difficult to view that it has a particular effect on guaranteeing the defendant's right to defense.

When the victim refused this even though he was different from B, it does not go against how to reverse the age and age of the victim when he did not die. It shows what kind of gue gue is the gue. It shows." In view of the fact of violation of the Building Act of the victim.