All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant accused accused the victim's corruption or discloses it to investigative agencies or press agencies.

There is no threat to the victim, and the victim prepared a letter that he will pay KRW 90 million to the defendant under the pretext of agreement, and the payment of KRW 10 million is based on the reasonable judgment of the victim, and cannot be deemed by the defendant's intimidation. The defendant's demand that the victim pay KRW 90 million to the victim is a legitimate exercise of the victim's right to exercise the defendant's right to manage the first place.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Intimidation as a means of threat to the relevant legal doctrine and public order refers to notifying a threat that may cause harm and injury to the point of restricting the freedom of decision-making or obstructing the freedom of decision-making. Bad faith notification is sufficient if it does not necessarily require the method of specification, and it would lead the other party to a certain harm and injury. Although the notification of harm and injury is used as a means of realizing legitimate rights, if the means and method of realizing the right exceed the permissible level and scope under the social common sense even if it is used as a means of realizing legitimate rights, it shall be deemed that the crime of threat was commenced. Whether certain acts specifically exceed the permissible level and scope under the social common sense should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, namely, the purpose and method selected as a whole (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2422, Mar. 10, 1995).