At around 19:30 on the same day, the Defendant and B called “bring, drinking alcohol to minors, drinking alcohol to minors, certificate of inspection of the certificate of post, and so on if the credit card settlement is revoked,” and did not report to the police, the Defendant and B, in front of the G convenience store in F, was fright to report to the police.

The Defendant, in collaboration with B, tried to acquire pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 18,00 by causing the victim to cancel the credit card settlement, but the victim refused and attempted to commit such act.

2. The evidence supporting the facts charged in this case lies in B’s statement (Evidence Record 68 pages) that “the Defendant made the phone call to B to return the drinking value again,” and the statement (Evidence Record 94-95 pages) that “the Defendant and E” were a minor, who was aware of the identification card inspection, and made the phone call to that effect,” and “the Defendant’s statement (Evidence Record 106-107 pages) and “the Defendant and B, who tried to cancel the card by making the phone call, are the statements of the Defendant that “the Defendant made (Evidence Record 106-107 pages)” and “the Defendant’s statement (Evidence Record 107 pages) and “the answer to the question of whether the two were the mother to threaten this State.”

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant’s phone call was not the Defendant but the victim was not the Defendant, and the victim and the victim were made telephone call, and the victim was directly found as E, and even before the instant case, B was recognized that there was a history of committing the crime of intimidation by threatening the business owners in the same manner as the instant case.

3.2