Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

Defendant

B.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court (defendant A) is insufficient to conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) among the facts charged against Defendant A is insufficient to readily conclude that Defendant A conspired with Defendant C to commit an attack, and that the facts constituting the crime of the first instance, which is included in the above facts charged, are committed.

(1) The Defendant found the Defendant guilty of the crime of extortion as stated in paragraph (1) and found the Defendant not guilty.

On the other hand, the defendant only appealed against the guilty portion of the defendant A, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the defendant A.

In accordance with the principle of no appeal, the part of innocence was transferred to this court according to the principle of no appeal, but it was not subject to the judgment of this court because it was out of the object of attack and defense between the parties, and therefore, this court decides to comply with the conclusion of innocence in the first instance court, and only the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance with respect to

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the public prosecutor’s (misunderstanding of facts against Defendant C)’s investigation agency and the first instance court’s statement and the Defendant’s investigation agency, Defendant C conspired with Defendant A to collect money from the victim’s M in collusion.

B. Defendant A (i) misunderstanding of facts does not bring about money by threatening the Victim P.

The victim P saw that it is necessary to protect the victim in order to properly conduct news reporting business, and the victim P paid money for himself/herself at the end of the negotiations with the defendant A as a protection expense.

Shebly, the first instance of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The imprisonment with labor of the first instance court (10 months) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Examining the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts in accordance with the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone for the same reason as the first instance court stated in detail is the victim.