The victim transferred the material cost of KRW 3 million and KRW 7 million from the defendant on a two-time basis, but the victim demanded KRW 24 million from the defendant on the ground that the incidental requirements of the defendant on the part of the defendant were added to the toilet and beeas after removing the toilet and beeas.

The Defendant terminated the contract with the mind that the victim would avoid contact and will no longer proceed with the construction even though it is different from the board of directors.

On January 2016, the Defendant issued cash receipts for KRW 10,000 for the material costs already remitted to the victim, but the Defendant refused to issue cash receipts when the victim demanded 10% of the value added tax, and reported the fact to the Gangnam Tax Office around that time.

At around 12:00 on March 3, 2016, the Defendant received the victim’s telephone from the victim who was investigated at a tax office and was diversified, and stated that “The victim will pay an administrative fine of KRW 5 million equivalent to 50% of the construction cost if the reported content is confirmed. 5 million won is too much so that the amount of money to be paid to the State would be paid to the next country, and the report will be withdrawn upon receipt of only KRW 4 million if it is paid to the next country.”

On March 7, 2016, the Defendant got transferred KRW 1 million to the Defendant’s Nonghyup Bank account on March 7, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by threatening the victim.

2. Intimidation, as a means of the crime of attacking judgment, is likely to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, taking into account specific circumstances into account.