The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court of original judgment made a confession to reduce the sentence, and the defendant did not make a intimidation or intimidation to the victims.

However, only the victims received money under the name of unpaid wages or allowances, food expenses, and borrowed money.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The defendant's confession in the court of first instance as to the assertion of mistake of facts cannot be said to be doubtful of the probative value or credibility of the confession merely on the grounds that the confession in the court of first instance differs from the statement in the appellate court. In determining the credibility of the confession, the credibility of the confession shall be determined in consideration of the following: (a) the contents of the confession's statement objectively rational; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the motive or reason for the confession; and (d) what is the reasons leading up to the confession; and (e) whether there

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556 Decided April 29, 2010) In full view of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below based on the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s confession in the court of original instance as well as the statement of the victims are sufficiently recognized, and thus, the Defendant’s credibility of the statement is sufficiently recognized. Thus, the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant got money from the victims of frightenage after threatening or threatening the victims.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) The victims referred to in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment (hereinafter referred to as “victims of the conflict”) consistently dismissed the Defendant in the investigative agency, and the Defendant demanded money under the name of hospital expenses, rent, etc. in addition to the wages that the Defendant promised to report as a violation of the labor law, such as the minimum wage, etc.