A. On July 10, 2017, the Defendants asserted that “The Defendants sent text messages from No. 12 to No. 16 to No. 16 of the facts constituting an offense indicated in the annexed Table of the lower judgment as indicated in the lower judgment” to the effect that “The Defendants sent text messages to J rather than the victim, and the J did not have the authority or status to dispose of the victim’s property, which was the object of public conflict, and thus, the Defendants cannot become the counterpart of public conflict.” As such, the above part does not constitute a crime of public conflict.”

Such assertion shall not be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal, which is raised after the expiration of the period for submission of the written reason for appeal.

B. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, in light of the court below's ex officio examination, the court below is just in holding that the message sent to the court is a conflict between the defendant and the victim, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as asserted by the defendants.

1) In light of the circumstances delineated below, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal principles.

A) Defendant A has a claim of KRW 1.68 billion in total, including the amount of KRW 840 million in damages claim due to the cancellation of a land sales contract and the amount of KRW 840 million in damages claim due to a tort or nonperformance of obligations against the victim, and Defendant A consulted on the return of the said amount to the victim and the victim, and only sought the return through a lawsuit, and there was no intention to attack Defendant A.

B) The content of the text message sent by Defendant B to the victim cannot be deemed as intimidation beyond the permissible level and scope under the social norms, and there was no intention to attack Defendant B.

(c).