If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) had subcontracted some of the construction works to E.

The defendant, who is affiliated with E, is a person in charge of the steel-frame process of the above construction.

At around 11:00 on April 15, 2014, the Defendant accompanied F F reporters to a construction site office located at the above site.

F brought an issue to G and H, who is an employee of the victim company, in the presence of the Defendant, “whether the steel works during the above construction are not poor”, and expressed an attitude to report this to the media or to file a civil petition.

Since then, the Defendant stated that “this building should be completed and sold in lots, and if the construction of the steel works go to the press, it would not be good for the company of the political party.” The Defendant said that “I will not go to the press if I would go to the media, from among the labor cost to be paid in E, the KRW 10 million out of the labor cost to be paid in Korea.”

Accordingly, if the above problem is reported to the media or a civil petition is filed, the victim company, which caused the trouble in the completion procedure, remitted 10 million won to the defendant's agricultural bank account (I) on April 25, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant was delivered KRW 10 million to the victim company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and J;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant received personnel expenses related to the instant construction project, but did not threaten the victim company.

2. Determination

A. If the relevant legal principles have obtained property or pecuniary benefits by leaving the other party as a means of intimidation exceeding the degree that is difficult to be accepted by social norms by the Defendant’s exercise of rights.