Of the acquittal portion against Defendant B by the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment’s acquittal on April 1, 2012 is reversed.

Defendant

B Fines 200.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The lower court found Defendant B guilty of the crime of injury to Defendant B’s victim F, and sentenced to a fine of KRW 2,00,000, and acquitted all the charges against Defendant A, and acquitted Defendant B of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint intimidation), violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint intimidation), and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint intimidation), and not guilty of the injury on April 1, 2012.

B. As to the conviction portion of the lower judgment, Defendant B and the Prosecutor did not appeal, only the Prosecutor appealed against the aforementioned acquittal portion by the Defendants, and the aforementioned conviction portion which the both parties did not appeal was separated by the appeal period.

C. Therefore, the scope of the trial at the trial court is limited to the acquittal portion among the judgment below, and only this part is subject to the trial at the trial court.

2. 항소이유의 요지(무죄 부분에 관한 사실오인) 피고인들에 대한 폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동협박)의 점과 관련하여 피해자 H의 경찰 진술에 신빙성이 있는 점, 피고인들에 대한 폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)의 점과 관련하여 피해자 L으로부터 마사지�을 인수한 N의 경찰 진술에 신빙성이 있는 점, 피고인 A에 대한 폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)의 점과 관련하여 피해자 N의 경찰 진술에 신빙성이 있는 점, 피고인 B에 대한 2012. 4. 1. 상해의 점과 관련하여 피해자 Q의 경찰 진술에 신빙성이 있는 점 등을 고려하면, 이 부분 공소사실은 모두 유죄로 인정할 수 있다.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint intimidation) against the Defendants, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint rapion) and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. against the Defendant A (joint rapion).