The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s scope of trial in this Court rendered a judgment of conviction against the Defendant [2017 order 3713] Of the facts charged against the Defendant, [2017 order 4468 [2017 order order] case, each of the judgment of innocence was pronounced. Since only the Defendant appealed as to the aforementioned guilty portion, the part of acquittal which the Defendant and the Prosecutor did not appeal became final and conclusive as it is.

Therefore, the judgment of this court is limited to the guilty part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In the case of each of the instant crimes by mistake of fact, it was true that a defect occurred due to the actual accident, and the Defendant only used a somewhat excessive speech and behavior in the process of exercising his right to demand repair expenses. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant threatened customers by means of the existing damage, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Even if the notice of harm and injury was used as a means of realizing a right, if the notice of harm and injury was used as a means of realizing a right, and the method of realizing a right exceeds the permissible level or scope under the social norms, a crime of extortion is established.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below based on the above legal principles, including Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2422 delivered on March 10, 1995 and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6406 delivered on October 11, 2007, etc., the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant let customers using sirens drink and received or attempted to receive excessive repair costs, etc. through verbal abuse or bathing, etc., so the defendant's allegation that there was an error of mistake of fact in the judgment of the court below is without merit.

B. Illegal assertion of sentencing.