The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Facts charged;

A. On December 18, 2012, the Defendant committed the crime of December 18, 2012, at around 01:00, obtained the pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above amount by having the victim, who received a demand from the victim for the payment of the drinking value, “the victim shall report illegal business” and “the victim, who made a demand for payment of the drinking value, pay the drinking value to the victim for the payment of the drinking value, and having the victim pay the drinking value claim under the care of the victim’s 'Esing practice' in the "Esing practice' operated by the Busan B, Busan, along with his/her daily behaviors, at the "Esing practice."

B. On December 26, 2012, the Defendant committed the crime of December 26, 2012: (a) around 23:00 on December 26, 2012, the Defendant acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above amount by making 2,80,000 won in total, including two parallels of each week, and demanding a payment of the drinking value from the victim; (b) threatening the victim to “report illegal business”; and (c) by threatening the victim to “a report illegal business”; and (d) forcing the frighter to file a claim for the drinking value; and (e) having the frighter to obtain the pecuniary benefits equivalent to the above amount.

2. The written statement (section 8 of the Investigation Record) of the police with regard to D is written that D's statement that "(the defendant) changed the drinking value and reported whether it would cause it or not."

D, however, around February 2015, he/she prepared a confirmation document stating that “No intimidation has been made to the effect that he/she reported illegal business” to the Defendant, and even after attending this court as a witness, he/she did not mean that the Defendant reported illegal business. At the police, the Defendant, F, and G were specified, and the person who threatened the Defendant to report illegal business was F. The Defendant did not have any such speech.”

Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the statement of the above police protocol on D is written evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant threatened D.

3. According to the conclusion, the facts charged in this case are as follows.