The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was the chairperson of E, and the victim, the representative director of J (hereinafter “J”) of J (hereinafter “J”), who is the defendant, was bound to file a civil petition against the J or hold a meeting and to interfere with the operation of the J, such as a dispute with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the content of intimidation as stated in the facts charged, as constituting “in bad faith notification,” which is a means of committing the crime of extortion, and in light of all evidence and circumstances, it is recognized that the defendant made intimidation, such as the written facts charged.

Therefore, although each of the facts charged against the defendant can be fully recognized, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the meaning of misunderstanding of facts or malicious notice.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of facts, as otherwise alleged by the Prosecutor, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion cannot be accepted.

A. Intimidation, which is the means of the crime of threat, refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making. It is sufficient that a malicious notice is not necessarily an explicit method, but if it is intended to have the other party recognize that it would cause harm and injury through speech or action, it may be indirectly made through a third party other than the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the other, and if the perpetrator demands the delivery of property or pecuniary benefits by using illegal perjury based on his occupation, status, etc., and if the other party fails to comply with the demand, it is likely that