A. The Defendant, who is true, did not have committed an act of taking advantage of the victims against the victims, and paid money to the Defendant in lieu of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the victims to the F.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts 1) Intimidation as a means of a 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 execution of the will. It is sufficient that malicious notice does not necessarily require the method of specification, and if it is intended to have the other party recognize that it would be likely to incur any harm and injury by language or impulse, etc., and it may be indirectly made through a third party other than the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the other, even if not directly, and even if an actor demands the delivery of property or pecuniary benefit by using illegal above circumstances based on his occupation, status, bad sexual behavior, career, etc., and causes the other party to not comply with such demand, the threat of harm and injury may be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1565, Jul. 15, 2005).

A) In around 1995, the Defendant: F, as the victims C and D’s children, and F and D’s East businesses, operated a car page in the E-building owned by the victim, Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul. At that time, the Defendant invested equipment, such as the interior and sound equipment, and F provided a business site via the victim D.

F withdraws from the operation of the Dada for personal reasons in 1997, and the defendant operated the Madada.

B) On March 1, 1998, the Defendant was the above building between the victim D on March 1, 1998.