except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 120 hours.

As an auction hub, the Defendant, as the Defendant had a 1/2 of the shares in the land of Incheon-gun E, F, G, H, H, and I, had the victim K voluntarily filed an application for auction and had the victim use the fact that he is the head of the bank branch, thereby inducing the victim to receive the land, thereby having the victim receive the said share in the land or money equivalent thereto.

1. On February 24, 2013, at around 09:52, the Defendant sent a text message to the victim’s mobile phone, stating, “The head of the incumbent branch office may be able to engage in a high-class bond business in the name of the head of the mother.” We also find out to the extent that it is possible to find out the source of closed-down, etc... The Defendant knows that a financial person would not have any financial person. If the principal of the investment is not known, the Defendant would find his right by legally using all means of civil petition.”

2. Around February 27, 2013, the Defendant filed an authoritative interpretation on the victim’s house, which is close to 00 billion won by not giving any contact. Even if the 20th head of the branch office has been awarded a successful bid, the time and method of handling the 3th head of the branch office would not be more easy than that of the 3th head of the branch office. In most cases, if the 20th head of the branch office is awarded a successful bid, 50 percent of the 50th head of the branch office would not be able to be able to complete. The 50 percent of the shares of the 3th head of the branch office in the Financial Supervisory Service. On the other hand, the 20th head of the 3th office office office office office did not ask the Financial Services Commission and the 20th office office office of the 3th office office office office of the 20th office office office of the 3th office office office office office of the 3th office office office office office office.

The Defendant, throughout the two occasions, attempted to withdraw 1/2 or 240,000 of the above real estate from the victim, by threatening the victim to do so, but failed to comply therewith.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of examination of the witness to J;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement to J;

1. A written petition;

1. Letters, text messages and photographs;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 352 and 350(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

The defendant asserts to the effect that the expression of intent delivered to the victim with the same content as the facts stated in the judgment is not unlawful as part of the legitimate exercise of right that demands correction of the victim's unlawful exercise of right.

However, even if one has a legitimate right, if the other party was to receive property or to receive pecuniary benefits by means of intimidation beyond the degree and scope permitted by social norms, it shall be deemed that the crime of public conflict has commenced. In such a case, whether certain acts exceed the permissible level and scope permitted by social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, i.e., the purpose and method selected (see, e., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2127, Dec. 13, 1991; 94Do2422, Mar. 10, 195).

With respect to this case, the Defendant received KRW 242 million from K or the victim, who is the successful bidder of the land outside Incheon Ma-gun and four parcels of land outside Incheon, or threatened the victim, who is the head of the bank branch, to be in a disadvantage in relation to his status, and threatened the victim, who is the head of the bank branch, to the inspection agency, to be in a disadvantage in relation to his status. In fact, the victim was subject to inspection by the bank to which he belongs by the Financial Supervisory Service. Since the above act of the Defendant does not constitute a legitimate exercise of rights, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine it.

Grounds for sentencing

Considering the fact that the crime of this case was committed in violation of the quality of the crime of this case, the victim wanted to punish the defendant, and the fact that there was a history of punishment for the same kind of crime, etc., the defendant should be punished strictly. However, the crime of this case does not cause direct property damage to the victim, and there was no record of being punished exceeding the fine for the same kind of crime, and the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act are considered.