The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The defendant is found to have committed habitual assault when the victims were committed, but there is no time to be included in all the items in the annexed crime list (1) and (2) in the decision of the court below.

The court below found the victims, their families, and the neighbors guilty of the whole charges of this part of the charges, which committed an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) Although the Defendant received money from the victims habitually, the amount was much less than the amount claimed by the victims, and the amount was only the money received as a car or a partner’s fee, not the money received from the victims.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

3) 강요의 점 피고인은 술에서 빨리 깨라고 C에게 뜀박질을 권유한 적은 있으나 이를 강요한 사실은 없다.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant and the defense counsel argued to the same effect as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, can find the facts charged of this case, including habituality, as a whole.

The decision was determined.

In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court's method of evaluating the credibility of the testimony of the first instance court, considering the contents of the first instance court judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, it was clearly erroneous in the first instance court's determination on the credibility of the testimony of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance court and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

special circumstances that may be seen.