The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to a mistake of facts against ① an accusation against F, the Defendant did not have filed a complaint with the purport that “F made a threat that F would offer money early,” ② With respect to an accusation against D, the testimony of D’s witness of the lower court is inconsistent with F’s testimony of the witness of the lower court, as well as the lack of consistency, and thus, is not reliable. ③ In relation to the accusation against E, the Defendant did not explicitly indicate specific false facts about E, and even without intention, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court recognized the Defendant as having committed an accusation against three persons, such as F, on another premise, against the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In the conclusion of the statement of grounds of appeal dated August 28, 2013, the Defendant’s misapprehension of the legal principle did not explicitly indicate the legal principles as the grounds of appeal, but it includes the assertion that “if the Defendant cannot be deemed to constitute a criminal fact only with the contents of the accusation filed by him/her, there is a legal doubt that does not constitute a crime without accusation, unless the crime is established at the beginning.” Thus, it should be examined in light of the misapprehension of the legal principle.

Although there is no room to establish a false accusation against the defendant who accused of the crime of coercion because the content stated in the accusation against three persons, including F, by itself, cannot be deemed as an act of intimidation by law, it does not constitute an act of intimidation, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the following facts are recognized.

① The Defendant is the owner of 3,989 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Busan-gun, Busan-gun, which was purchased on December 4, 2001, and F is the same.