A. Since a considerable number of victims of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles paid money to the defendant even though they did not know the harm and injury of the defendant or did not know the situation, the crime of attack is not established as to this part.

(2) The Defendant is not habitually aware of the conspiracy.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a 3 years of imprisonment, a fine of 20 million won, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles refers to notification 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 decision-making. The threat of harm and injury is sufficient if it does not necessarily require the method of specification, and it is possible to have the other party recognize that it would be likely to suffer any harm and injury by language or impulse, etc., and even if not directly, it may be indirectly made through a third party other than the person under threat. In addition, even if an actor demands the delivery of property or pecuniary benefits by using illegal consolation circumstances based on his occupation, status, poor character and behavior, career, etc., and if the other party fails to comply with such demand, it is also a notification of harm and injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1565, Jul. 15, 2005). In this case, the victim’s attack or the victim’s new attack on his own health, health, and operation of a server lawfully or the evidence of the court below.