The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal argues that the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had contributed to the victim, and that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged in this case

1. The Defendant and D’s co-principal conduct are F’s heads of fishing village fraternities composed of fishermen residing in G in the city E, and the Defendant was the executive secretary of the same fishing village fraternity. D and the Defendant conspired with the Defendant to take money by taking account of the following: (a) the victim H (the age of 60) who newly built a pention in G adjacent to the said fishing village community joint fishing village fraternity; and (b) there is a concern for damage to the community fishing village due to the construction of a pentry construction work.

Around November 20, 2013, the Defendant and D demanded the victim to re-survey on the ground of border invasion at the “J” restaurant located in I, and the Defendant and D showed an attitude that the victim would interfere with the construction by filing a civil petition without giving money to “A person operating the training center in the vicinity, who is able to cooperate with the fishing village fraternity so as to be likely to inflict damage on the common fishing ground of the fishing village fraternity due to the pension construction, and who is 20 million won with the compensation for damage and the village development fund to the fishing village fraternity so that the construction is well carried out by the fishing village fraternity so that the construction is well carried out by the fishing village fraternity.” Even around December 25, 2013, the Defendant and D did not want to withdraw from the victim by re-afusing the victim in the same way as in the same way, and the victim did not refuse to grant money to the victim and did not have attempted to do so.

2. On December 23, 2013, the Defendant’s sole criminal defendant had shown the attitude of obstructing the penting construction like the preceding paragraph at an insular site on December 23, 2013, and it is necessary to have a phone called to the victim who was drinking.