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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

From November 1, 2011 to December 17, 2013, the Defendant served as an employee from F in Busan Northern-gu E.

The Defendant, the chief director of the above welfare center, determined that the Defendant arbitrarily used the above welfare center’s budget, and had the intent to collect money from the victim. On December 17, 2013, the instant welfare center’s president, stated “50 million won” to the victim at the above welfare center’s office, and said, “I will report to the police station and the Gu office on the embezzlement of public funds unless the said money is paid.”

The Defendant, as seen above, did not bring the victim to attack and withdraw KRW 500,000 from the drinking victim, and did not have the intent to refuse it.

Summary of Evidence

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on recording;

1. Relevant Article 352 of the Criminal Act, Articles 352 and 350 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination of the defense counsel's assertion of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act

1. The summary of the argument was that the Defendant reported the victim during the process of pointed out and resisting the error of the victim, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a intimidation in the crime of extortion. In order to clarify the Defendant’s intent not to compromise the victim’s return or acquisition, a large amount of KRW 500 million was requested, and the Defendant did not in fact threaten the victim to receive the said money from the victim, and accordingly, the victim did not have any awareness of the fact that the victim had been out of the mind.

2. Intimidation, which is the means of a crime of attacking judgment, refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making. If the threat of harm and injury has the perception that it would cause harm and injury to the other party through speech or behavior even if it is not an explicit method.