1. The defendant is innocent. 2. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant is a company (ju) E representative director who is a gold-type production business chain for vehicles, and the victim (ju representative G) F (representative G) is a company that supplies “vehicle body” to a modern flag vehicle.

Defendant

When the company supplies a body gold paper produced by being requested to manufacture by the victim company, the victim company has produced the body by using this gold paper, and has supplied it to the modern automobiles and treatment automobiles.

From June 2, 2014, the victim company agreed to produce a new type of YP car from the arche car to the arche car and deliver it to the arche car.

Defendant

On May 10, 2013, upon receiving a request from the victim company for the manufacture of gold papers, the company made a set of three gold-types (one, two, three, and three) necessary for the manufacture of teas of YP model by the end on May 12, 2014, and produced gold-types by consultation with the victim company and the vehicle manager.

The Defendant, by the agreed delivery date, knew that if three gold-type cases are not supplied to the victim company, the victim company did not produce the body of the vehicle, and thus, it would no longer be able to exist as a subcontractor of the vehicle by causing fatal interferences in the manufacturing plan and manufacturing process, with the knowledge that the victim company would no longer be capable of being in existence as a subcontractor of the vehicle, he threatened the victim with the loss of property, demanded a large amount of money and demanded it.

On April 25, 2014, when the maturity of the last gold delivery was ten (10) days prior to the due date, the Defendant unilaterally demanded the victim Company I to find it as the victim company located at H at Sih at Sih, and return to the victim Company I to the effect that “The foregoing gold (final products) was not supplied from May 16, 2014 to May 16, 2014 because the Defendant did not supply three gold-type expenses (UB, KH, YD-2D, 4D, 5D, LF, YP), F-type additional requirements (E), and F-type additional requirements (F-type changeing expenses).”