If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

C is engaged in the livestock industry and the defendant is free from office.

C listen to the Defendant’s speech that the Defendant was indecent act from the “E” located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D located in the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, where he was a part-time employee, and was willing to raise money by threatening the Victim F(43) who was the owner of the business on loan.

C around 04:00 on May 17, 2013, at the street near the H convenience store located in Seojin-gu G University located in Seojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the street, "The first good method is to be resolved in money, A was a birth and was put in a store without a health certificate, and he was drinking six-month business suspension even with only one francing, the president was completely terminated, and francing the president, was an organized violence that lives in Kim Jong-gu, and 11 places other than 3 million won are threatened with consolation money."

Therefore, the victims of the above drinking water are victims.

On the day, around 05:00, at the H convenience point in Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D University located in Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, C and the defendant were 1.8 million won.

As a result, C and the Defendant received 1,80,000 won by threatening the victim jointly and jointly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of witness F in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Part of the witness C’s legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (Attachment, such as a record of conversations with internal investigation C);

1. Article 2 (2) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant alleged that he acted in collusion with C does not constitute intimidation.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, namely, C, at a entertainment establishment in the past Kim Jong-do, worked as a manager, and lives together with the organizational violence.