A. In regard to the crime of extortion, the Defendant was found guilty of this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as there was no fact that he merely borrowed money, did not go against, and 2) the crime of interference with business on August 23, 2014, merely changed the value of the victim D, and there was no fact that he exercised his power, such as taking the said victim or another customer’s abusive language.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court and the trial on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant: (a) requested money from “E” operated by the victim D; (b) around August 21, 2014, around 15:00; and (c) expressed the attitude that the Defendant continued to receive 20,000 won until receiving the money from the victim; (b) on August 23, 2014, at around 18:00, the Defendant called “2,000 won with the victim’s right at the same place; (c) was refused from the victim; and (d) expressed that the Defendant had expressed his desire to “Iskh and 4 years.” The Defendant’s desire to interfere with the Defendant’s desire to interfere with the victim’s business by force, etc., and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business by force cannot be accepted.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant is not more severe than the degree of the instant crime, and the Defendant committed again the instant crime even though he had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, and there is still an agreement with the victim.