All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the victim D and F’s statement in the investigative agency is more reliable than the statement in the court, and the above investigative agency’s statement and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendants were found to have obtained economic benefits equivalent to the rent corresponding to the period because the defendants failed to carry on the street store business in the area of the street store managed by the victim by making the victim’s speech and behavior and attitude as stated in the facts charged, and the defendants did not carry on the street store business. However, the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendants on the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts

2. Determination

A. Defendant A was a person with a fluence in the entirety of the facts charged of the instant case; Defendant B was a simple fluence with the foregoing Defendant A, and the victim D leased and managed the entire 3m of the road in front of the building in Busan Shipping Daegu EM in Busan in KRW 25 million from the meeting of the above E commercial member and leased and managed the entire 3m of the road in front of the building in Busan in KRW 7 to August 2, 2000.

On July 13, 2014, at the above E-building underground management office, the Defendants found at a place to perform funeral services in the front of the above shopping mall, and caused the Defendant F, the manager of the above shopping mall, to have the victim f, and thereby caused the victim f, to have the victim f f f f f f f g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g e.

If only the name in the city is talked within the city, all of them shall not be made.

Therefore, it refers to the "to perform funeral services", and the defendant B refers to the defendant B to perform funeral services.

In the other side, the expenses for hospital treatment shall be reduced in the amount of the expenses.

D. The Defendants 2 and 3 did not accept the above demands of the Defendants on the part of the Defendants, and the Defendants 2 acted as if they would cause harm to the victims and frighted to the victims.

3.