As to a mistake of mistake of facts, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact, even though the Defendant merely received damages from the victim E by returning leased objects during the lease term, and there was no fact of intimidation by threatening E on the ground that the Defendant was a reporter.

As to the attempted attempt to commit an attack, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, even though the Defendant did not at all request the victim L to advertise 5 million won fake advertising.

Even if the defendant raised a mutual agreement by threatening E with regard to the conflict of interest in misunderstanding legal principles, even if the defendant, before becoming aware of the fact that the defendant was a reporter, he voluntarily decided that the defendant would be paid KRW 30 million under the name of director and damages as the name of the defendant. Thus, the amount of the mutual agreement shall not be KRW 52 million but be KRW 20 million (= KRW 52 million - KRW 2 million - KRW 30 million). However, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles, thereby recognizing the amount of mutual agreement as KRW 52 million.

Judgment

In light of the contents of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly examined in the court of first instance, if there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the judgment of the court of first instance on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the court of first instance was clearly erroneous, or if the court of first instance is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the court of first instance in full view of the results of the first instance and the results of additional examination of evidence not later than the closing of argument in the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse the judgment of the court of first instance solely on the ground that the judgment of the court of first instance on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the court of first instance is different from the judgment of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In this case