A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the statement of the victim B and E, the victim, etc., the fact that the Defendant was using a vehicle worth KRW 14 million at the market price by providing the victim with “I would leave the vehicle if I would leave the vehicle,” and sufficiently recognized the fact that the Defendant was using the vehicle at the market price of KRW 14 million from the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts argues that the defendant, which is recognized based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, acknowledged the following circumstances from the investigation agency to the court of the court below, and consistently recognized the intimidation which was recognized as guilty in the court of the court below, and that the victim was forced from the defendant during the piracy with his her friend, and the defendant threatened the defendant with "I frith" in the above friend telephone conversation.

In full view of the fact that E, which had been the victim at the time, stated that the Defendant stated that he stated the above mentioned words, but it is not easy to believe that the Defendant’s above statement was accurately made by scalphones, and that in the piracy, the Defendant made the above statement with the victim at the home of F, the Defendant made the above statement with the victim at the time, and that F, which was immediately adjacent to the Defendant, was obviously testified that the Defendant had never made the statement that he would make the Defendant “influoring,” at the time, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant got the victim to “influoring,” and thus, this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime.