Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On October 29, 2014, the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint rupture) (hereinafter “the charge of attacking around October 29, 2014”) is as follows.

Defendant

B The leading threat of harm was given in the crime of attacking this part, and the defendant A would deliver to the defendant B at the time of delivery of 3 million won as the crime of attacking this part.

in this chapter.

Therefore, the Defendants’ conspiracy to commit this part of the crime can be sufficiently recognized.

2) On June 18, 2015, a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint rupture) (hereinafter referred to as “a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc.”) (joint rupture) is deemed to have been committed on June 18, 2015.”

In light of the fact that the offer of entertainment by the commission of the crime of bribery in this part was made at the drinking house operated by Defendant B’s wife, Defendant B may sufficiently consumpate the fact that Defendant B received entertainment.

In addition, in light of the role of the Defendants, the conspiracy relationship between the Defendants can also be recognized.

3) The crime of retaliation is committed against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Refluence, etc.) (hereinafter “influent intimidation”).

As long as Defendant B’s participation in each of the above crimes is recognized, there is no difficulty in recognizing the fact that Defendant B participated in retaliation intimidation to discontinue the investigation.

In addition, Defendant B notified the other party of the harm sufficient to the extent that it causes fear to the other party beyond the dimension of paragraph B.

B. The defendant A asserts that the punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant A (a crime No. 1 in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, and a crime No. 2 in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the Defendants were the victims of the instant construction site around October 20, 2014, following the following: (a) around October 29, 2014: (b) around October 20, 2014, the Defendants were the victims of the instant construction site.