폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal acknowledged that the defendant, together with Co-Defendant A and E, did not pay drinking and drinking value in the entertainment tavern in which the victim G is the head of the business division (hereinafter “the main place of this case”). In light of the victim’s consistent statement that the defendant threatened the victim by using the above method as if the defendant was organized violence, it can be sufficiently recognized the facts charged of this case where the defendant conspired with Co-Defendant A and E to join the victim, but the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant was involved in the crime of attack of E, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.
2. Determination
A. The victim's statement in the court below is the only evidence consistent with the facts charged against the defendant. Considering the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the victim's statement alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged that the defendant conspired with co-defendant A and E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.
① The victim appeared as a witness in the court of the court below to the effect that “at the time, the Defendants acted as commission of organized violence” was called “as if the Defendants were organized violence” by attending the court of the court below to answer to the question “I am frighten and frightened domestic maximum violent organization staff working in the marine transport team.”
② However, the victim made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that “E is responsible for and calculated the drinking value on the day of the instant case, and the victim demanded the drinking value, which means that “E does not have any money after the Defendant and Co-Defendant A produced all of the drinking value, and that he made various interviews and intimidation to the victim,” and the Defendant along with E.