The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Defendant of the Prosecutor.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing) and misapprehension of legal principles demand that Defendant A take over F in 130 billion won to the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”). However, this is merely a legitimate exercise of rights, not a intimidation against the victim company, and even if Defendant A threatened the victim company, it is not a payment due to the victim’s frightness, and thus, it is not deemed that Defendant A did not pay F in 130 billion won. Thus, the crime of conflict is not established.

2) Even if Defendant A’s act of sentencing is found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (nine years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The reasons for appeal against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable as the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A is too uneasible.

2) The grounds for appeal against Defendant B (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles) Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to threaten the victim company in collusion with Defendant A, thereby threateninging the victim company, and the lower court that acquitted Defendant B on the grounds that Defendant B did not conspired with Defendant A to commit an offense is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The crime of intimidation refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be hot enough to restrict a person’s freedom of decision-making or interfere with a person’s freedom to enforce a will. Here, the realization of harm and injury notified here does not necessarily require that it itself is unlawful and is used as a means of realizing a right, even if the notice of harm and injury is used as a means of realizing a right, if the means of realizing a right exceeds the permissible level or scope under the common sense of society (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3254, Sept. 25, 2014).