The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence, such as the consistent statement of the victim that the defendant informed the harm that "the defendant would have reversed the victim's statement under the victim's order if the victim did not revoke the victim's complaint I," the defendant can sufficiently be found guilty of each of the facts charged against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Injury, etc.) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Intimidation, etc.) in relation to the investigation of the criminal case of I.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on each part of the charges on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the statements made by the victim alone were proven without any reasonable doubt on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its holding. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, and one year and six months of probation) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, who is a criminal organization of organized violence, is a criminal organization of the 20th century. As to the investigation or trial of his/her or another person’s criminal case, no one may either provide a criminal investigation team, such as a complaint or accusation, make a statement, give testimony, or submit materials, or cancel a complaint or accusation, or make a false statement, testimony, or submit materials. The Defendant, around 201, became aware of the fact that he/she was a driver of the H’s behavior ledger of “H”, which is a criminal organization of organized violence, and became aware of the fact that he/she became aware of the age 41, and thereafter the Defendant did not receive retirement allowances from I.