2. The prosecutor’s ex officio reversal of the facts charged in the instant case from June 2013 to November 11, 2013 to “from January 5, 2012,” and the Defendant B’s time of crime to “from January 5, 2012,” respectively, applies for permission of the court to change the amendment of the indictment from “from January 5, 2012,” and the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed ex officio on the ground that the mere correction of facts charged is merely a correction and the subject of adjudication is not changed.

2. The fact that the Defendants recognized each of the instant crimes and reflected against the Defendants, and that Defendant A deposited KRW 2 million in sum to the victim L and K of each of the instant intimidation in the first instance, and that the agreement with the victim K was reached, etc. are favorable to the sentencing.

However, the period of committing the crime of violating the Employment Security Act against the Defendants is considerably long-term, and Defendant A made intimidation to the victims L, who are amusement workers, and K want to work in other news reports or entertainment taverns among the crimes of violating the Employment Security Act. Defendant B again committed the crime of violating the Employment Security Act despite the previous conviction who was punished for the same kind of crime. In full view of the motive, circumstance and consequence of the crime of this case, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, and other favorable circumstances, even if considering the above favorable circumstances, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.