A. 1) Although the Defendant, who was not guilty of intimidation at the lower court, did not render any judgment on the assertion, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not render any judgment on the assertion. 2) In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the statement of the victim without credibility.

B. The Defendant had a claim for brokerage commission against the victim, and the Defendant urged the victim to pay the debt in order to recover the claim.

The defendant's act is justified as a legitimate act.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a crime shall be committed in the judgment when a sentence is rendered, and a summary of the evidence and the application of the law shall be clearly indicated (Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). If so, the lower court did not err in the judgment of the lower court, since the Defendant issued a fine of KRW 1,50,000 to the Defendant after being subject to the summary of the evidence and the application of the law on the non-compliance with the escape and the crime of intimidation, and thus, there is no error in the omission of judgment in the judgment. The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit. 2) Since the fact-finding of facts is consistent with the statement that the victim was subject to intimidation as stated in the judgment of the lower court, and the statement that the victim was subject to intimidation by the Defendant is consistent, and

B. Fact-finding, incomplete deliberation, and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to non-compliance with evictions, which the Defendant mediated by the victim.