The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant can be acknowledged as having received money from the injured party by notifying specific harm and injury, and such act of the defendant cannot be accepted in light of social norms.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined.

Defendant may be recognized as having received the same money as stated in the facts charged from the victim D under the pretext of agreement, however, in consideration of the following facts and circumstances, Defendant took money from D by means of intimidation exceeding the degree that it is difficult to be acceptable in light of social norms by receiving the said money or by benefiting from exercising the right to exercise the right:

subsection (b) of this section.

① Even though the Defendant and D became aware of the fact that D was in a party room operated by the Defendant and did not have any friendly relationship, such as personal contact or appearance, the Defendant and D became aware of the Defendant’s husband that D told the Defendant that D had made obscene remarks to people around the phone.

Along with the wind that the victim gets dead to her husband, the defendant was suffering from extreme mental pain at the time of the instant case, such as being forced to be forced by her husband.

② Nevertheless, D continued to call a phone to the Defendant, who continued to communicate with the Defendant upon the introduction of the Defendant, and the Defendant demanded that the Defendant not communicate any longer in the future, and whether the Defendant caused a disturbance by her husband who is not aware of the fact in English.

D. The Defendant leaves the boom or the Defendant’s booming that “I would not inform the children of the new father D that I would not commit this act,” or that “I would not blick the blurg by leaving the blurg.”