The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal accepted each of the statements of the victim and M with no credibility and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant did not infringe on the victim by threatening the victim, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the spirit of substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness was clearly erroneous.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted from the time the appellate trial ends, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim, consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, by consistently applying the Defendant’s desire for money to the victim as stated in its reasoning, the victim brought a total of 4.8 million won to the Defendant, which is 4.8 million won.

As to the fact that the victim made a statement, ② during the dispute with the constructor for the collection of new loan investment funds, the process of the victim’s work with the introduction of D and E through the defendant, or the process of the defendant’s demand for the money, etc., the victim’s statement contains specific and natural contents that are difficult to speak without direct experience, and there is no inconsistency in view of the empirical rule in light of the victim’s statement, and ③ the defendant’s statement is 30 years.