공갈
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is reasonable to deem that there was an act of disposal of the property of the victims who are in the state of appearance due to the defendant's implied intimidation, inasmuch as the defendant received a large amount of overseas training subsidy from the above school by presenting the same attitude as that of the president's investigation into the prosecution under the circumstance that C University President D was under investigation by the prosecution due to the suspicion of embezzlement of school expenses, and that the president D and school affairs support team leader E were given the same attitude as the president's questioning about the charges of corruption and the student council together with the group action. However, the court below acquitted the
2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's finding the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the determination of evidence as stated in the judgment is justified (a threat, the means of the crime of threat, must be limited to the freedom of decision-making or a threat of harm likely to drinking to the extent that it interferes with the freedom of decision-making, and according to the above evidence evidence, it is sufficient to view that the interests of the school's interest in and the defendant's interest in pursuing overseas criticism in the suspicion of corruption are remote and that the expenses for overseas training have been paid to the defendant. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone sufficient to deem that the defendant was paid the expenses for overseas training, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant was paid the expenses for overseas training based on the defective will, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this). The prosecutor's assertion that there is no errors in the misapprehension of the judgment as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. In conclusion, the Prosecutor’s appeal is justified.