The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the facts of the lower judgment’s crime No. 1, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant, with respect to the crime No. 1 of the lower judgment, did not receive money from the victim, but exercised legitimate rights to receive overtime work allowances or holiday work allowances.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged despite the fact that the injured party was not exposed to the crime No. 2, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The punishment of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of fact 1) The crime No. 1 of the crime of the court below refers to a threat of harm likely to be frighten enough to restrict people's freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of execution of decision-making. It is sufficient if a threat of bad faith does not necessarily require the method of specification, and causes the other party to be aware that it would cause harm to the other party by language or dynamics, and even if it is used as a legitimate means of realization of right, if the means and method of realizing right exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms, it shall be deemed that the crime of public conflict was commenced. Whether certain acts in this context exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms should be determined by taking full account of the subjective and objective aspects of the act, i.e., the purpose and chosen method sought (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2422, Mar. 10, 195).