The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (1) The Defendant (guilty part) caused the victim to pay the borrowed money, and caused the instant damages to the victim’s face by rootsing water on the victim’s face, leaving away from the floor. However, the Defendant’s report on the disclosure of the payment of KRW 33,00,000 to 14,70,000 to 14,70,000.

C. There was no threat that he would not leave his her son without giving money, and the victim merely lent 33 million won to the victim with the right of his her her son and his her son would not pay the remainder of the money. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of attempted to leave his son and son. This part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The prosecutor (the part concerning the crime committed without fault) rejected the credibility of the victim's statement and rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of fraud and violation of justice among the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two million won in penalty) is too heavy or (the Defendant) and unhulled (the prosecutor).

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (guilty part) and in particular, the statement of the witness D and the site of the case at the court below.

According to H’s statement, recording of recording files at the time of recording, etc., the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant has threatened the victim by speaking as stated in the facts charged of this case.

In the recording file of the above recording, the date and time of creation of the files are not “as of February 2, 2015, around 15:20,” but “as of February 5, 2015, 17:45,” and “as of February 6, 2015, 13:23,” but in full view of the content of investigation reports (as of the date of creation of the recording files), recording records, D, and H’s statements, the above recording files were recorded at the time of the instant case, but they were copied.