The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: although the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds that it is difficult to see that the defendant received money from the damaged person; however, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant received money from the damaged person; therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant of the instant facts charged, from around September 2006 to May 201, 201, sold the two seconds supplied by the victim D (E) in the name “E” from the victim D (E)’s “D (57) located in Chungcheongnam-gun, and sold them to the inspection, etc., the Defendant demanded that the victim adjust the business area, etc. between the victim as the business area overlaps with the above “E” and the amount of sales after receiving the two seconds increased. However, the Defendant was refused to sell the two seconds, who knew that the victim omitted or recycled the tax invoice while selling the two seconds, and omitted the tax invoice for the portion in sales, and reported it to the National Tax Service.

By intimidation, I tried to keep money out of money.

On April 201, the defendant would be a problem if the tax investigation commences on the part of collecting and selling the waste plants without issuing a tax invoice to the victim in the invirative frequency of the trade name in Tae-gu, Tae-dong, Daegu-dong.

If the National Tax Service does not provide KRW 60 million, it will report to the National Tax Service.

“In the absence of the money so demanded, the victim was threatened to the National Tax Service as if he reported the victim.”

As above, the Defendant was transferred KRW 50 million, in total, to the agricultural bank passbook in the name of the Defendant, from the victim who frightened the victim and frightened the victim, to KRW 30 million around May 6, 201, and KRW 25 million around June 13, 201, including KRW 25 million around June 13, 201.

B. The lower court and the lower court’s determination 1) considered the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s instant case.