협박
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. 항소이유의 요지 피고인은 임대인인 피해자 D에게 “임대기간을 연장해 달라”는 취지로 부탁하였을 뿐, 원심 판시 제1항 기재와 같이 “만약에 �아내면 가스를 폭발시키겠다”는 등의 말을 한 사실이 없고(2009. 12. 13.자 협박의 점에 대하여), H에게 “이사비조로 500만 원 정도를 지급받으면 고시원을 비워주겠다”는 취지로 말하였을 뿐, 원심 판시 제2항 기재와 같이 “�아내면 가스를 폭발시키겠다”는 등의 말을 한 사실이 없다
(1) The court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on June 29, 2010.
2. Around May 31, 2004, the victim filed a lawsuit against the defendant as Seoul Western District Court 2009Gadan29987 on May 25, 2009 on the ground that the part 3 and 4th floor (the part which was operated as the published source, hereinafter "the notified source of this case") of the building in this case was leased to the defendant, and then the lease was renewed, and that the contract was renewed, and the defendant filed a lawsuit against the notified source of this case on December 13, 2009 on the ground that the notice of provisional disposition was announced to the notified source of this case on December 13, 209 (the record of the trial, 74-79 of the record of the trial, 2ndor 25 of the record of the evidence), and the victim stated consistently that the defendant's right to defense as stated in paragraph (1) was not stated in the judgment of the court below, and that the victim stated the defendant's right to defense as well as evidence 251 and evidence 25th of this case.