All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact that: (a) the Defendant received 2.6 million won from F and delivered a written consent to the use of the I land to Chungcheongnam-gun; and (b) the Defendant again obtained benefits, such as the right to use groundwater, from the complainant in return for the use of the said land by borrowing a provisional registration on the said land; and (c) the Defendant is deemed to have obtained significant unjust benefits by taking advantage of the influent state of the complainant’s poor condition.

B) On October 26, 201, in light of text messages sent by the Defendant to the complainant, it is apparent that the Defendant threatened the complainant in light of the text messages sent by the Defendant, and since the complainant paid additional construction cost after having agreed with the Defendant, the crime of threatening the Defendant is established. C) In light of the fact that there was dispute over the issue of additional construction cost by the Defendant and the complainant around the time of the charge, it appears that the Defendant had an intention to interfere with the work of the complainant, and that the work delayed due to the Defendant’s act.

2) The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for eight months on which the lower court sentenced the Defendant, including two years of suspended sentence and eight hours of community service, is unreasonable. B. Defendant 1) mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the fact of crime No. 1) is the obligation to pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 100 million in relation to the purchase and sale of land in the Suwon-si Area E, and the Defendant did not deliver the money, which is heavier, to the Defendant’s intimidation.

2. The above sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle, the lower court’s judgment examined the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.