The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (public conflict) did not threaten the victim to spread CCTV images to SNS. Even if the Defendant made a statement to the purport that he would spread CCTV images, it is obvious that the Defendant had no intention of harming in light of the surrounding circumstances as a temporary expression of appraisal, and thus, it cannot be deemed as intimidation in the crime of public conflict.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the lower court can recognize the fact that the Defendant received property by threatening the victim as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

① 피해자 B은 수사기관에서 “피고인이 2017. 11. 4. ‘이제부터 너는 가게에서 꺼져라. 2,000만 원 안 가져오면 니네 친구들하고 가족들한테 다 소문 내겠다. 너희 같이 있었던 장면 CCTV 확보해뒀으니 SNS에 다 유포하겠다’라고 피해자 B에게 소리를 질렀다”고 진술하였고(수사기록 41, 55면), 원심법정에서도 같은 취지로 증언하였다

(Public Trial Records 42,44 pages). The victim B obtained a high interest rate loan from a savings bank, etc. on the 10th day of the same month after the sixth day of the same month and remitted the amount of KRW 15 million to the defendant.

This seems to be due to the fact that the defendant actually committed the above acts.

(2) The J shall be in accordance with D in the location where the defendant has a fright base, such as N,O, P, etc.