A. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which was not actually delivered from the victim, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendant threatened the victim E, but did not have the purpose of retaliation against the victim’s accusation, and 40,00,000 won out of approximately 429,189,789, which was recognized as the amount of defraudation of the victim E, was not actually delivered from the victim.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to have received a total of KRW 429,189,789 from the victim E from April 29, 2009 to February 11, 2012. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is a crime in which the legal interest of the State is protected in addition to the protection of a reporter, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do5444, Mar. 15, 2012). The elements of a crime of intimidation, etc. include subjective elements related to a trial or investigation of a criminal case, and include the statutory punishment more severe than that of intimidation under the Criminal Act. Thus, the purpose of retaliation, which is an excessive major illegal element than the intention, is clear in the text of the Act, and its purpose is not required to be active or conclusive recognition, and it is sufficient if there is an incomplete perception.