A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant acquired documents bags containing 73 copies of the receipt of subscription (hereinafter “instant document bags”) by chance, and found the owner thereof, and only H was conducted to return the instant document bags, and there was no intention to obtain illegal disposal against the Defendant.

B) On the part of the crime of attempted extortion in the judgment below, the Defendant directly threatened the victim E or did not take part in the crime of attempted extortion by the Defendant B. Even if the Defendant’s larceny is recognized, it shall not be evaluated as a functional control over the crime of attempted extortion. 2) The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendant thought K as the owner of the instant document envelope, and demanded that K be an honorarium of KRW 2 million. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ground that E was unaware of whether he was the owner of the instant document envelope and did not demand a honorarium to him.

B) Since the Defendant has endeavored to return the instant document bags directly to K, there was no intention to obtain an unlawful acquisition of larceny. C) As the Defendant did not think of the intention to actually make a report to the Gu office, the Defendant’s phrase “Written Report to the Gu office” alone cannot be deemed as an intentional act of a crime of public intimidation or a intimidation, which constitutes a constituent element of a crime of public intimidation.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants asserted as identical to the assertion of the lower court’s defense counsel.

(1) The court below held that Defendant A asserted misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to larceny in the judgment of the court below for the first time, which is the same as Defendant B alleged in the judgment of the court below). The court below held that Defendant A and the defense counsel are the same.