A. In light of the fact-finding of the crime of coercion C, the investigative agency and the court of original instance consistently stated that “A victim made a mistake of fact-finding without the Defendant’s certificate of loan,” and that “A victim of mistake of fact-finding” consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court of original instance that “I would be able to find the fact-finding room without the Defendant’s certificate of loan,” the debt amount between the actual parties is KRW 6 million, but the debt amount is KRW 8 million, and the consolation money amount is also large to KRW 50 million, not only, but also up to March 8, 2017, which is subsequent to the non-limit of the due date and the separation period, it is reasonable to deem that the victim prepared each of

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the crime of coercion is erroneous.

B. According to the record of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to defamation, the defendant is confirmed to have sound "at the inside of the Republic of Korea", and even when according to the statement at each court of the original instance of the victim, G, and F, the defendant, while recognizing that other people are in the presence of the victim, G, and F, he is recognized to have sound from the corridor of the building where the victim works in the workplace with the same content as the facts charged.

In addition, it is clear that the defendant made a statement of the fact that impairs the social evaluation of people with the intention to impair the reputation of the victim, and the requirements for performance shall also be satisfied.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant of defamation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. As to the crime of coercion, the lower court determined that: (a) the circumstances indicated in its reasoning acknowledged by the record, namely, ① there is no objective evidence that the Defendant made a intimidation, such as this part of the facts charged, and the victim’s statement does not have any circumstances to suspect the credibility thereof; and (b) there is no motive for the Defendant to make such a intimidation.