The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is a case in which the defendant conspired with B to establish a sexual intercourse with D, the victim was a minor, and is detained without agreement with D on the facts of sexual intercourse with the minor, and thus, it is a case in which the defendant threatened the victim with B to take 1.5 billion won from the drinking victim, by threatening him that he would be subject to heavy punishment without agreement with D on the facts of sexual intercourse with the minor.

In addition, the Defendant was sentenced to criminal punishment several times in the past, and completed the execution of the punishment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period, and the content of the crime is not sufficient to commit the instant crime against the victim who was well aware of it, as if he had sexual intercourse with the minor.

Although the defendant was a large amount of money received from the victim, he did not make any effort for the recovery of the victim's damage from the investigative agency to the trial of the party, and did not receive any accusation from the victim.

However, the Defendant escaped from the Republic of Korea after the instant crime. The accomplice B, who was detained for the instant crime, made efforts to recover damage, such as paying the victim a total amount of KRW 850 million out of KRW 1.5 billion, and preparing and granting a loan certificate to the remainder of the money, etc. In the first instance court (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da679 Decided December 28, 2015), the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for two years and suspended execution for three years is final and conclusive. Although the Defendant was not directly repaid to the victim, it is necessary to consider that the victim was able to recover the victim’s damage by recovering the victim’s damage.

The defendant.