The defendant shall be innocent.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts charged of this case as follows: (a) around the end of May 1983, the defendant took care of the victim non-indicted 1's mutual assistance, and decided to take money and valuables from the female by using the fact that the female is his father, and (b) threatened the victim's husband with having received KRW 7,30,000 from the real estate business funds, etc. four times before and after the real estate business funds, etc.; and (c) recognized the facts charged of this case as follows: (a) as evidence of this case, the court below held that the defendant's testimony of the victim non-indicted 1 and 2, each of the statements at the court below and the prosecutor's office, the prosecutor's office, and the prosecutor's office of non-indicted 3, who are consistent with the part of the strike at the court of the court below and the prosecutor's office

(1) According to the records, as to paragraphs (1) through (3) of the facts charged by the Defendant consistently until the police is now open to the trial court, the Defendant was able to play together with the victim with amusement parks, etc., and used the necessary expenses by borrowing them from the victim. As to the facts charged pursuant to paragraph (4) of the facts charged, it is clear that the Defendant’s statement by the Defendant cannot be proven as evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

(2) Examining the following victim non-indicted 1's statement, it is difficult for the victim non-indicted 1 to keep the victim's statement from 1983 to 10,00,000 won, 70,000 won, which were 0,000 won or more from 10 to 12:0,000 won, and 10,000 won, which were 0,000 won or more from 10 to 10,000 won, and 10,000 won, which were 10,000 won, were 0,000 won, and 10,000,000 won, which were 0,000 won, were 0,000 won, and 10,000,000 won, which were 0,000 won, were 10,000,000 won, and 10,000,00,00 won, 10,000.

(3) The statements made by Nonindicted Party 2 in the original trial court at the police later held that “The Defendant and the victim discussed the matter of money on the road on April 25, 1986 and May 31, 1986. At the time, the Defendant was satisfing the victim, fating the fat, leading the Defendant into the fat at the time, leading the her husband, and leading the her husband to the entire order,” but the statements made by the fats are difficult to believe in light of the above circumstances, and it is insufficient to recognize the charges of this case that the Defendant committed intimidation to the victim.

(4) The statement made by Nonindicted 3 at the prosecutor's office is summaryed to the effect that "the defendant was aware of the fact of attack by Nonindicted 1, and that Nonindicted 1 was in receipt of money from the defendant with a view to inducing the defendant," and the statement made by Nonindicted 1 is likely to believe the statement made by Nonindicted 1 as the reason why he did not believe the statement made by Nonindicted 1 because he was merely the fact that he was moving his speech from Nonindicted 1 or that he was in receipt of a promissory note in the name of the defendant, and in light of the relationship between the Dong and Nonindicted 1, the relationship between the Dong and the Dong, and the fact that the Dong was in receipt of the statement made in the name of the defendant, the statement made by the Dong is no more reliable.

As seen above, even if the evidence presented by the court below was based on the evidence, the defendant cannot be admitted to the facts charged, and no other evidence consistent with the facts charged cannot be found. Thus, the court below should have rendered a verdict of innocence against the defendant, but the court below found the guilty facts in violation of the rules of evidence and thereby found the facts erroneous, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the court below's decision that does not have to proceed to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the defendant, his

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment is again ruled as follows.

As to the summary of the facts charged:

On May 1983, the Defendant decided to attract money and valuables from a female by taking advantage of the fact that the female was a female, when the Defendant had had her lux with Nonindicted Party 1, who became aware of at least at the end of the year, had her luxed with the female’s lux.

1. On June 1983, at around 11:00 on the first day of 1983, the victim's house, "if it is not possible to do so, she will know about the fact of aggression to the her husband", and the head of the party's house, which demands a 100,000 won, after going to the her husband with the door door in the old-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the head of the new-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the head of the party house, "if she knows about the phone number, she would turn off all facts to her husband if she knows about the house number, she would turn off to the her husband", and around 14:00 on the next day from the 14:0 on the day following the day of drinking her husband's house.

2. At around 12:00 on July 29, 29 of the same year, at the new location at the scarbly scarb in the scarb and scarb in the above scarb and receive 200,000 won from the victim;

3. At around 11:00 on August 20, 200 of the same year, the victims suffered a 1,000,000 won from the victims by giving the crypted amount to the alley located in the new forest bomb in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City;

4. On January 8, 1985, in the real estate office located (mutual omitted omitted) located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) on January 8, 1985, the victim received the amount of KRW 6,000,000,000, which was occupied by her husband, from her husband to her husband if "if the real estate business fund is required, 10,000,000 won is added to her husband, she would lead her husband to her end, and she would her end, she would her husband, and she would her end, she would her her husband, and her husband her husband her husband her house at around 19:00 on the 16th of the same month. As seen earlier in the grounds for reversal, the facts charged in this case was found not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Yong-dam(Presiding Judge)