A. (1) Although the defendant received money as stated in the judgment of the court below at the time of mistake of facts (which means that there was a mistake of facts, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the E’s statement without credibility, despite the fact that he received money from E as stated in the judgment of the court below, as the compensation for damages for the injury inflicted upon the injured party during his body fighting with G, or not by intimidation E.

B. The sentence (three million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged without a reasonable reason despite the prosecutor (the use of violence against C) stated that the victim C was assaulted by the defendant at the investigation stage.

2. Determination

A. (i) In the part of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, intimidation as a means of a crime of intimidation refers to the threat of harm and injury likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making. Here, the realization of harm and injury so notified does not necessarily require that it itself is unlawful. Even when the notice of harm and injury was used as a means of realizing the right, if it is used as a means of realizing the right, and if the method of exercising the right exceeds the permissible level or scope under the generally accepted social norms, the crime of coercion is established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6406, Oct. 11, 2007). The following circumstances, which can be recognized in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6406, Oct. 11, 200).