All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In regard to the attempted suicide of Defendant 1, misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant 1 had had had the intention to commit suicide prior to the commission of “the same person”, and thus, there is no relation between Defendant 1’s act of aiding and abetting and the victim’s resolution on suicide.

B) The victim voluntarily delivered money under the pretext of compensation, etc. to the Defendant with respect to each attackion by a police officer from October 2013, 2013, and a police officer from April 2014, not by intimidation of the Defendant.

C) Regarding the violation of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information, it is nothing more than confirming the location information transmitted by the Defendant’s e-mail, not the Defendant’s e-mail, with D’s consent. 2) The punishment (three years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the part of innocence), the Defendant has continuously committed violence and intimidation against the victim’s wife, and the victim has given money to the Defendant to prevent this. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that it could be recognized between the Defendant’s assault and intimidation and the act of disposal by the victim, is erroneous in

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the attempted suicide prevention, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court. However, the lower court, which is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, i.e., the following circumstances, i., ① the victim D requires the victim to hedge against the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court.

Then, the victim was dead.