The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim V (hereinafter “victim of misunderstanding of facts”) has provided legal advice in the course of handling the case in accordance with the instant delegation contract concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant, and as a result, substantial damage to the Defendant has occurred, the victim issued the Defendant a fee of KRW 22 million on January 21, 2013.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. The lower court rendered a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that: (a) the ownership of the instant commercial buildings in question was recognized in a case involving a disposition prohibiting real estate entry and temporary injunction (201Kahap35), which was rendered by the Suwon District Court (hereinafter “E”); and (b) on June 18, 2019, the lower court rendered a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that the Seogu District Public Prosecutor’s Office believed the Defendant to have the right to remove the instant commercial buildings.”

As such, the Defendant was believed to have the right to remove the commercial building of this case and there was no intention to deceiving the victims.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the judgment.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (the second crime of provisional punishment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and each other crime in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for three years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As a means of a mistake of facts in regard to the assertion of a misunderstanding of facts, intimidation refers to the threat of harm that is likely to cause severe harm to the extent that the freedom of decision-making is restricted or that interferes with the freedom of decision-making. The threat of harm is sufficient if it is not necessarily required to be made by the method of specification, and it is sufficient to have the other party perceive that it would cause harm to the other party by language or dynamics. In addition, it is direct.