It is difficult to readily conclude that a criminal act was not committed, and in light of the relationship between the defendant and D and B, testimony of the court below which seems to conform to his/her statement is not reliable, and rather, according to his/her statement in an investigative agency, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged, even though it could be found guilty.

2. 판단 우선 이 사건 공소장 기재에 의하면, “피고인은 2011. 6. 하순경 위 ‘G’ 호프집에서 피해자에게 ‘돈을 주지 않으면 직장도 그만 두어야 할 것이고, 당신 딸아이에게도 마약을 하였다는 사실을 알리겠다’라고 말하고, 2011. 7. 초순경 같은 장소에서 피해자에게 ‘야, 자식아, 니가 감독이라는 놈이 마약이나 해 놓고 일을 다 봐주었더니 이제 와서 발뺌을 하느냐, 지금 바로 학교에 연락을 하겠다’라고 말하면서 피해자에게 4,200만 원짜리 차용증을 작성하도록 하였다.”는 것이나, 피해자 D은 원심 법정에서 피고인이 아닌 B으로부터 위와 같은 말을 들었다고 진술하고 있고, B 역시 원심 법정에서 자신이 피해자에게 위와 같이 말하였다고 진술하고 있어 위 공소사실 기재에 부합하는 듯한 D의 수사기관에서의 진술은 쉽게 믿기 어려우며, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

In addition, the record reveals that B, prior to the six to seven years of the instant case, he was aware of D, which was under the supervision of the high school mouth, and was friendly with the help of her children in relation to her elementary school and middle school mouth entrance, but he was previously heard that D had difficulty in being aware of the fact of Mesacopic administration, and requested E, which was known to the present chief prosecutor around June 14, 201, to send the Mesacopic action to E, and requested E, which was again again on June 18, 201.