All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 did not have a misunderstanding of facts against the victim’s identity. The victim did not feel fear of fear in the court. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is heavy.

B. Prosecutor 1) Inasmuch as a victim of mistake of facts C was not present in the court due to the unknown whereabouts of the victim, the victim’s statement and the victim’s legal statement prior to the fact of damage are admissible as evidence, and this part of the charges against the Defendant is fully convicted. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is somewhat weak.

2. Determination

A. Intimidation, the means of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, refers to the threat of harm and injury that is hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making. The threat of harm and injury is sufficient if, even if there is no explicit method, it would cause harm and injury to the other party through speech or action, and may be indirectly made through a third party other than the person under threat. In cases where an actor demands the delivery of property or pecuniary benefits by using illegal consolation money based on his/her occupation, status, etc., and where the other party refuses to comply with the demand, it is also the threat of harm and injury and injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1374, Apr. 11, 2013). According to evidence duly examined and duly adopted, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant made the victim D the same remarks as the facts charged, and such horses are assessed in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

B. Pursuant to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the protocol under Article 312 of the same Act, or the statement, documents, etc. under Article 313 of the same Act, shall be prepared or taken as evidence to determine the prosecutor's assertion