A. As to Defendant (1)’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (A) around October 2012, the Defendant did not have received three million won from the victim E at the time of criminal facts as indicated in the judgment.

There is a fact that the defendant was 3 million won from the damage of the above day-to-day landscape.

Even if it is not by the defendant's intimidation but by the victim's own threat to promote friendship with the defendant. (B) On July 18, 2013, the defendant was paid KRW 1 million from the victim of the crime in the judgment, and there was no threat to the victim.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, two years of probation, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. On January 2013, 2013, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant made the same speech and behavior on January 1, 2013 that the Defendant would prepare the disadvantageous articles against the victim to the police officers and the victims, and that the Defendant was granted an extension of the period of use of the right to use the welfare center free of charge from the victims of drinking alcohol.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. The lower court testified that there was no direct statement from the Defendant to the effect that the witness J would threaten the Defendant as stated in the facts charged, and that the said statement was transferred from the principal of the school, etc., and that it provided an extension of the right to free use at the end of the meeting, but the said court was identified by the J.

M or N also testified from the Defendant that there is no means to say that there is no such remarks as the facts charged, and that J has never passed the said remarks, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is the time limit for the victim to use the right to free use of the welfare center in accordance with the report by the J, which was subject to the above intimidation, by the fact that J was threatened by the Defendant.