A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles only have come to be friendly on February 28, 2014, and the Defendants did not threaten the victim, such as the facts charged.

The judgment of the court of the first instance was erroneous or erroneous in the legal principles on intimidation.

B. Each sentence of the first instance court on the Defendants’ unfair sentencing (each of 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 120 hours of probation, community service, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

가. 사실오인, 법리오해 주장에 관한 판단 1심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 후 유죄의 증거로서 거시한 증거들을 종합하면, 피고인들이 이 사건 당일 처음 만나게 된 A과 피해자 사이의 금전 문제에 개입하여 공소사실과 같이 1심 공동피고인 E 등과 함께 피해자에게 돈을 갚으라고 윽박지르고, 옷을 벗거나 팔을 걷어 몸에 있는 문신을 보여주면서 지불각서를 작성할 것을 요구한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이와 같은 행위는 공동하여 피해자를 협박하여 의무 없는 일을 강요하는 행위에 해당한다

(On the other hand, with respect to Co-Defendant A, B, and Terrorism, which requested Defendant C to receive a written notice of payment from the victim, the judgment of conviction on the joint coercion in the first instance court became final and conclusive. Accordingly, the Defendants’ mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be accepted.

B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) there are a number of records of punishment against the Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing; (b) the appellate court still has a consistent defense that makes it difficult for the Defendants to obtain the punishment for each violent crime; and (c) there is no special circumstance to mitigate the punishment of the first instance court; and (d) the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, career, home environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the first instance court’s sentence against the Defendants is unlimited.