A. In the absence of intimidation or assault against the victim E as stated in the facts charged, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged of this case on the basis of the non-liability evidence. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the fine of KRW 1,500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim made a statement consistent with the facts charged, ② the witness G of the court below made a statement to the effect that “When the victim was present at the site of this case immediately after the instant case, the victim had been satisfed, and the victim had been satisfed,” and ③ the above statements are not found to have been false or misleading, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendants made intimidation and assault as stated in the facts charged, and to the same purport, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below, even if examining the records, there is no other error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. Although the extent of assault and intimidation made by the Defendants on the part of the victim of unfair sentencing is not limited, the Defendants did not have any effort to recover damage without recognizing the mistake of the Defendants, despite the fact that the victims stated to the effect that “the Defendants are not wanting to punish if they are aware of fact only,” and the Defendants did not have any effort to recover damage. Defendant A has several violent crime records, and Defendant B has several concurrent criminal records, and the lower court is favorable to the Defendants.