A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable (the Defendant withdrawn his assertion of mistake as to the facts in the grounds of appeal on the first trial date of the first trial of the lower trial). B. The above sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In this case, the defendant used the superior position in the subcontracting relationship with the defendant and the prosecutor, and threatened the victim, who is the representative director of L who is sewage, with various disadvantages in relation to the payment of the construction cost or the modification of design, etc., and the nature of the crime was serious; the crime was serious; the damage was not fully recovered; the damage was not completely recovered; the defendant was punished for the same crime in the past; and the defendant had a history of being punished for the same crime in the past, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, there are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant was found to have committed the crime and is divided, that there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine, that there is no record of punishment, that the victim was in the course of the investigation, and deposited KRW 300 million out of the money by making the victim a person under the trust during the investigation, and that the said money is deemed to have some characteristics of the consideration for the defendant to provide various convenience to L in the course of construction work under a subcontract between J and L.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, and the circumstances after the crime, which are favorable or unfavorable to the defendant, and the records and changes of the case, the punishment imposed by the court below is too heavy or too unreasonable.

The argument that the sentencing of each of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless.