The guilty part against Defendant B and the part against Defendant C shall be reversed respectively.

Defendant

B.

As to this, Defendant B filed an appeal against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and on the grounds of unfair sentencing, Defendant C filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the prosecutor filed an appeal against Defendant B on the grounds of unfair sentencing only for the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below. Of the judgment of the court below, the acquittal portion on Defendant B’

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the conviction part against Defendant B and the part against Defendant C of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Defendant B’s public conflict does not mean that Defendant B would be detained or subject to heavy punishment unless agreed to the victim P and Q. However, Defendant C’s assertion to the effect that “where agreement is not reached, the victims’ indecent act will be submitted to the police.”

As long as the indecent act and violence of the victims are true, the above words are legitimate exercise of rights that do not exceed the extent permitted by social norms.

In addition, since the victim P voluntarily paid 6 million won after he/she conspiredd with the defendant B before communicating with C attorney and paid the agreed amount, there is no causation between the defendant B's act and the victim's act of disposal.

B. (i) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.