The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

The facts charged of this case.

A. Defendant (1) In fact, the Defendant provided the victims who illegally transported students to school through the Association of BA and received the expenses for the establishment of the company in order to receive money in the name of commission or to provide a legally operated method through the social company, and did not receive money by threatening the victims.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The part rejecting the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the facts charged in this part of the judgment below that rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to each of the facts charged in this part of the judgment below. The Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant is erroneous as to each of the facts charged in this part of the judgment below.

The court below rejected the above argument and found the defendant guilty as to each of the facts charged in this part by explaining detailed reasons in the 8th or lower of the judgment.

Intimidation as a means of the crime of intimidation refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or to interfere with the freedom of decision-making. The realization of harm and injury so notified refers to the case where it does not necessarily require that it is unlawful and the threat is used as a means of realizing the right, even if it is the case where it is used as a means of realizing the right, if it is a means of intimidation, and if the means of realizing the right exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms, it is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6406, Oct. 11, 2007). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and investigated including the statements of victims and L, the defendant is over the year 207.