The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant merely received money from the injured party under an agreement to receive 100,000 shares of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) from the injured party I (hereinafter “victim”), and did not borrow money from the injured party.

In addition, prior to the e-mail of March 26, 2012 that the defendant sent, there was no threat to the victim, and the letters and e-mail sent after March 26, 2012 do not constitute intimidation.

Ultimately, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The Defendant, on May 2005, agreed to receive 100,000 shares of the instant company from the injured party in Qcccca shop to receive 100,000 shares of the instant company from the injured party.

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted in the lower court and the first instance court, there was an agreement on 100,000 shares as alleged by the Defendant.

No person may see significantly.

㈎ 위와 같은 약정을 하였다는 2005. 5. 경은 피고인이 피해자에게 네 차례 1,000만 원씩 4,000만 원을 지급하였을 때이다.

In relation to the above payment of money, the victim consistently stated that he paid 10,000 shares of the company of this case, which were owned by the victim at the time of around May 2005, the victim had consistently been paid from the investigative agency to the trial court, and the defendant also stated that she was supported by the prosecutor without any condition (Evidence No. 2 No. 1,000). There is no reason why she transferred 10,000 shares of the company of this case, which were possessed by the victim, to the defendant.

There is also a direct agreement supporting the existence of the above agreement.