The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The defendant, the owner of the building at the place where the main point of the grounds for appeal is opened, who is the owner of the building, filed a civil petition for viewing in relation to the street store with the victims of the street store, threatened the victims of the street store with the intention to park a car and paid the automobile for a few years without any choice to pay the automobile for his or her desire.

Therefore, the Defendant, without a legitimate title, took advantage of the position of the owner of a building without a legitimate right to receive a self-defensive money by notifying the damaged class members of harm to the extent that they interfere with the freedom of decision making or freedom of decision execution.

Although it is reasonable to see that the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) Intimidation as a means of threat means a threat of harm and injury likely to be frighten to the extent that it limits the freedom of decision-making or obstructs the freedom of decision-making. Bad faith notification is sufficient if it is sufficient to have the other party recognize that it would cause harm and injury to the other party without necessarily requiring the method of specification. Even if it is used as a means of realizing legitimate right, if the method of realizing the right exceeds the permissible level or limit under the social norms, it shall be deemed that the implementation of the crime of threat is commenced. Whether a certain act specifically exceeds the permissible level or limit under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, i.e., the purpose and method selected (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2422, Mar. 10, 1995; 200Do6289, Sept. 13, 2013).