If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

At around 03:00 on January 18, 2020, the Defendant: (a) at the house of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Victim D (hereinafter “B”), the Defendant: (b) demanded the victim to prepare repeatedly a loan certificate for 30 minutes, stating that “I shall pay the victim a total of KRW 26,046,000,000 to the Defendant each month on the ground that I shall not pay the loan money from the Defendant; (c) I shall pay the victim with no obligation to pay the loan money; (d) I do not pay the loan money; (d) I do not pay the loan certificate; and (d) I do not pay it; and (d) I do not pay it; and (e) I do not pay it; and (e) I do not pay it; and (e) I would like to do so; and (e) I would like to do so, I would like to do so.”

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim to perform a non-obligatory act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

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

1. Statement of each prosecutor's office or police statement concerning D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a complaint, a written application for payment order, a loan certificate, a photograph of assignment of claims, a criminal investigation report (Submission of the contents of Kakao Stockholm dialogue)

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 324 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the defendant's assertion under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. The assertion (1) has no fact of intimidation, such as impairing or threatening him/her to the facts charged;

(2) It shall be limited to abusive language, and it does not fall under the notification of harm and injury, and it shall not violate social norms.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., (i) the victim, from the investigative agency to the court, was forced to take up a loan certificate due to the Defendant’s act as stated in its reasoning.