The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

As to the violation of the Fair Collection of Claims against D by misunderstanding of facts, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged despite the Defendant's intimidation of the obligor D as in the facts charged, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of probation, and confiscation) against the accused of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The evidence that there is a criminal fact in the criminal procedure of the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts should be presented by the prosecutor, and the proof of the criminal fact should have the judge have the high probability to acknowledge it to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a degree of conviction, the defendant is suspected of guilt even if there is no evidence to establish it

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, namely, D reversed the statement made by the investigative agency several times as to the defendant's intimidation at the time of the instant case, and stated in this court that the defendant did not make a statement that he would die as at the time of the instant case while he made a statement that the defendant would not have made it clear as a whole, and D had the record of committing the crime of forging borrowed funds and forging borrowed certificates against many creditors as at the time of the lower court's decision, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the facts charged. Accordingly, the court below's judgment not guilty of this part of the facts charged is not erroneous.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant has a record of criminal punishment several times due to official conflict, obstruction of the exercise of rights, etc., and also commits the instant crime.