Of them, the part on Defendant F is reversed.

Defendant

F shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months.

Defendant

A, B, C, and.

A. Defendant A 1) Fact-finding [Judgment of the court below]

2. (i) The judgment of the court below as to each of the objections as to paragraph A)

2. (i) The Defendant did not demand the Z to change KRW 500,000 in return for the transfer of a recording file to the Z around December 2016, and the said money was paid at will by the Z.

B) Judgment of the court below

2. (i) With respect to navigation conflict, the Defendant did not make any speech or behavior that appears to inflict any danger or injury on the Z on December 16, 2016, and it was known that KRW 500,000 deposited into the account in the name of P was sent to C, not the Z, and therefore there was no intention of conflict.

2) The sentence of the lower court which is unfair in sentencing (Article 1.1 of the lower judgment);

2.(c),

(d)shall:

(f) Crimes under paragraph (f): Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and the judgment of the court below;

2. Crimes referred to in paragraph (g), (h), (i), (h), and (3): Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months, and 500,000 won for an additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (an additional collection of KRW 500,000,000,00) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) misunderstanding of the legal principles

2. D.

As to the joint intimidation in this part of the facts charged, the words and actions of the Defendants in this part of the facts charged have been possessed in the ordinary Z

However, spits are merely a mark of emotional bath or fuseo or a solicitation of misunderstanding in order to eliminate bad appraisal, but do not constitute a notice of harm or injury.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an additional collection of KRW 10,00,000) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

D1) The judgment of the court below is erroneous or erroneous.

2. D.

As to the joint intimidation, Defendant D was the office of K law firm, and was legally involved in the interrogation of the suspect before the detention of the Z's sexual traffic case.

The defendant acted in the Republic of Korea upon the request of the Z and did not have the intention of intimidation, and there is no fact of intimidation in collusion with the above defendants.

Z also has no fear of fear against Defendant D.

B) Judgment of the court below

2. As to the violation of the law by an attorney at law