The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the lower judgment and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (not guilty part of the reasoning of the lower judgment), the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, could have acknowledged the fact that the Defendant threatened the victims to take a total of KRW 400 million, but otherwise, 300 million in total

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value, which may lead a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be judged even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). In addition, the appellate trial has the character as a follow-up trial while the criminal case belongs, and also has the character as a follow-up trial in light of the spirit of substantial direct trial as prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is insufficient proof to exclude a reasonable doubt after the first instance court has undergone the examination of evidence, such as examination of witness.

In a case where a not-guilty verdict is rendered on the facts charged, if it does not reach the extent that it can sufficiently resolve the reasonable doubt raised by the first instance trial even if the probability or doubt about some opposing facts may be raised as a result of the appellate trial’s examination, there is an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance judgment, which lacks proof of crime solely

Clearly concluding that the facts charged are not guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the reasoning of the lower judgment is as follows.