2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff is between the Defendant and the native folk-gu.

From May 2, 2012 to July 29, 2012, the Plaintiff habitually worked for gambling more than 12 times in total. Of them, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were staying for gambling seven times.

On August 26, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant made a fraudulent gambling against the Plaintiff at the time of the said gambling,” and that “the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to make a written statement stating that “the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to borrow KRW 40 million with the gambling and to repay KRW 40 million within three days,” and received a delivery from the Defendant of KRW 35 million on September 2, 2012 and KRW 40 million on September 3, 2012.

B. On February 13, 2014, the court below held that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20 million with the Defendant as the principal deposit (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”) on the charge charged (hereinafter “related criminal case”) that habitually gambling and conspired with the Defendant in collusion with C, and that the Defendant was charged (hereinafter “related criminal case”), and that on February 13, 2014, the court of first instance (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Da5761-1 (Separation) deposited the Defendant as the principal deposit, and that “the Plaintiff was indicted from the Defendant for the charge of taking the above KRW 40 million and was under trial, and provided 20 million for reimbursement of damages to the above case, but the Defendant did not exercise the right to claim the deposit of this case or to recover the money until the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive,” without the Defendant’s consent.

The defendant paid the full amount of the deposit money on February 21, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff was sentenced to the first instance judgment on February 19, 2014 in relation to the above criminal case, and the purport of the said judgment is that the part of habitual gambling is guilty, and that part of the crime of extortion is not guilty.

Accordingly, the judgment of the second instance sentenced on January 23, 2015 (the Incheon District Court 2014No773) was appealed by the plaintiff and the prosecutor.