The judgment below

The guilty part (including the acquittal part for Defendant A) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Case summary

A. A. The prosecutor indicted the Defendants on the charges that the victims of the singing-sing business jointly did not have a duty to join the “J Association” but forced or attempted to join the Association by threatening 27 victims, and that they did not receive money from the victims for membership fees of the Association and for the Association’s non-uses and attempted to do so (for the victims 26 joint coercion and joint attack, joint coercion with the victims, and joint coercion with the victims I). (B) The lower court found Defendant A guilty of the part of the victim’s exclusive coercion and joint attack with the victim H (for the Defendant, the part of Defendant B and C’s coercion and cooperation with the victim’s H), and found Defendant B and C guilty of the part of the victim’s joint coercion and joint attempted cooperation with the victim, but acquitted the remainder of the victims.

② As to Defendant B and C, Defendant A and jointly with Defendant A found Defendant A guilty only on the attempted crime of joint coercion with the victim I and the attempted crime of joint coercion, and the remaining 26 victims were acquitted.

(c)

As to the judgment of the court below, the Defendants did not appeal, and only the Prosecutor was acquitted (including the acquittal of the reasons), on the grounds of misconception of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, appealed on the guilty portion on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal principles (including the part of innocence) that the Defendants specifically notified K and L regional singinging agents of harm and injury, the president and vice president of the regional friendly group were informed of harm and injury from the Defendant A through the friendship group, and the Defendants reported to the police as they reported the harm and injury to the Defendants, and Defendant A reported the harm and injury to the police. In light of the fact that Defendant A reported to the police, the Defendants jointly agreed with 27 victims.