The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal E, etc., the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged of this case, could sufficiently recognize the fact of intimidation E, by mistake of facts.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment to the effect that “the victim’s cell phone (H)” as “the victim’s cell phone” in the fourth and fifth acts of indictment was “the victim’s cell phone conversations” in the trial of the party. Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the existence of the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged, and this is examined.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. At around 14:10 on September 28, 2012, the Defendant, at the time of the revision, threatened the victim’s telephone conversations with the victim, saying, “The victim E, who was studying in the Spanish in the Republic of Korea through the Defendant’s arrangement, tried to file a complaint regarding the case where the victim E, who was going to study in the Spanish in the Spanish, from G, a supervisor of the local axis of the Spanish, shall bring the victim under threat of the victim on the part of telephone conversations with the victim on the ground that “if he files a criminal complaint against the injury of the Spanish in Spanish, or by mobilization of the surrounding connection to the social problem, would prevent the future of the F.”

B. 1) Direct evidence, consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, includes the E’s investigation agency and the I’s written confirmation at the court of the original trial and the I’s written confirmation at the court of the original instance. However, each of the E and I’s written statements at the investigation agency and the court of the original instance are difficult to believe it as it is for the following reasons. (A) Each of the E’s written statements at the investigation agency and the court of the original instance on October 23, 2012, and “Defendant” around September 28, 2012, and 15.