The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendants’ statement in the facts charged is a threat of harm beyond the scope of the realization of legitimate rights, and constitutes intimidation, which is the means of the crime of threat. Even if the content of damage alleged by Defendant A is true, considering the relationship between Defendant A and the victim, the content and intensity of damage inflicted by Defendant A incurred by Defendant A from the victim, the amount that Defendant A received from the victim goes beyond the permissible scope under social norms, and thus goes beyond the permissible scope. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby acquitted the Defendants.

2. 1) The court below found facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's payment of money to the defendant as stated in the facts charged was based on the agreement with the defendant A, and even if the defendants delayed the payment of the victim's agreed money, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's payment was made to urge the prompt performance of the amount already promised by the victim beyond the permissible limit under social norms, and it is difficult to deem that the victim was threatened by intimidation and delivered money as stated in the facts charged. The defendant was not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent of attack. 2) The intimidation as a means of a crime of public conflict refers to informing the defendant of harm that is likely to inflict excessive harm to the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of execution of the decision-making, and the notice of harm or injury is not necessarily required to be made by the method stipulated and has the other party in the language or the other party.