All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that Defendant A (unfair form of punishment) both led to confessions of and reflects against all the crimes, deposited KRW 10 million for the victim, and made efforts to agree with the victim, the victim copied data on the current status of property management to use Defendant A as a defensive means, and N actively arbitrates to prevent the victim from reporting the tax evasion of the victim, and thereby receiving money from the victim, the punishment of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not have any conspiracy or participation in the instant crime with Defendant A and C, and Defendant B did not know at all that the money he received from Defendant A was acquired by threatening the victim. (2) In light of the fact that Defendant B’s unfair sentencing is against his own behavior, Defendant B recommended to the effect that there was no profit acquired by returning KRW 8 million from Defendant A; and that “the victim would not interfere with N and resolve the problem with Defendant A smoothly,” and it seems that the victim would not have a significant degree of psychological pressure received by the victim. Therefore, the sentence of the lower judgment (6 months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, community service, 300 hours of social service, etc.) is too unreasonable.

C. In light of the fact that Defendant C (unfairly unfair) recognized all criminal facts, Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”), Defendant C’s efforts to agree with the victim, Defendant C was not punished, Defendant C did not have any record of life in good faith as a police officer, and Defendant C’s health condition is not good, etc., the punishment of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are comprehensively taken into account the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts.