A. There is no fact that the defendant made an objection against the victims, and there is no fact of intimidation, and there is no fact that he received one million won from the victim F.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts refers to the threat of harm that is the means of a crime of attacking the relevant legal doctrine, to the extent that the freedom of decision-making is restricted, or that it interferes with the freedom of decision-making. The threat of harm is sufficient if it would have the other party recognize that it would cause harm and injury to the other party through speech or behavior even if it is not always explicitly provided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13774, Apr. 11, 2013). 2) The Defendant recognized all the facts charged in the instant case at the lower court, and denies it for the said reason.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., ① the witness M, P, and N did not directly make a statement to the defendant for money, but the defendant stated to the effect that he received money by deeming the defendant as a guide to talking on how to report" several occasions of communication. The statement made by K, L,O, and I to the investigative agency is not significantly different. ② The victims operating convenience points and marina seem to have caused fear of business suspension due to the defendant’s horses. Considering the disadvantage of business suspension, this constitutes a threat of restricting the freedom of decision-making or interfering with the freedom of execution, ③ the victim stated that he delivered KRW 1 million to the defendant under the direction of F by the investigative agency. The defendant also stated that the investigative agency had also delivered KRW 1 million to the defendant.