Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged and by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The Defendant is the owner of the franchise store operating “C”, and the victim D is the representative of “I” who operates the “H” franchise business with the husband of G, the representative of “F” who operates the E franchise business, and the victim J is the employee of I.

A. From May 17, 2014, around 16:00 on May 17, 2014, the Defendant threatened the victim by putting the Defendant’s cell phone to the victim J using the Defendant’s cell phone, saying, “I am gasoline and go to the head office.”

2) On October 20, 2014, at the counseling office of the I head office located in Gwangju Northern-gu, Gwangju, the Defendant: (a) “I want to break up the Defendant by leaving L in the family with a view to getting L in the family; and (b) I want to move L in the family with a view to getting L in the family; and (c) I want to move back to Boh, and D to D’s representative D’s night road with a view to having D’s night road, so D’s home will only be able to come if D’s residence is found as M’s building.

“Intimidating the victim”, the victim was threatened.

B. On October 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) demanded the victim to prove the details of the settlement of expenses related to the franchise store at the I office of the victim D’s headquarters located in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju, to leave the headquarters; (b) did not comply with the demand of the victim to leave the headquarters; (c) did not comply with the demand of the victim; and (d) did not comply with the demand of the victim to leave the headquarters; (c) did not comply with the demand of the victim to leave the headquarters

Judgment on facts charged

A. The lower court: (a) the victim J did not clearly state the reason why the Defendant threatened the Defendant with the same content as the facts charged; and (b) the Defendant threatened the Victim J around May 17, 2014.