Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by reliance on the above D's statements as it is, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, inasmuch as the statements made in the investigation agency and the court are not consistent with the contents of the date of public conflict and the frequency of public conflict.

Judgment

Intimidation as a means of a crime of misunderstanding of facts refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of execution of decision-making. Here, the realization of the harm and injury so notified does not necessarily require that it is unlawful in itself. In a case where an actor demands the delivery of property or property benefits by using illegal consolation money based on his occupation, status, etc., and where the perpetrator does not respond to such demand, the threat of harm and injury is also a case where the other party causes a fear of unreasonable disadvantage if the other party does not respond to such demand. Even if the threat of harm and injury is used as a means of realizing the right, even if it is used as a means of realizing the right, and even if it is used as a means of realizing the right, if the means of realizing the right exceeds the permissible level and scope under the social norms,

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do5910 Decided May 24, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5910, May 24, 201). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, (i) each statement in D’s investigation agency or the lower court’s trial are relatively consistent to the purport that the Defendant threatened the Defendant to report the illegal construction to the Gu Office if he/she did not grant the facility compensation through several times from the police officer on November 24, 2010 to the first police officer on December 2, 2010; (ii) there are some differences between the statements made by D on the date or frequency of intimidation, but D is accurate on the date of