The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (in relation to coercion and coercion), and ① In relation to coercion, the Defendant did not have threatened the victim I.

Even if domestic intimidation is acknowledged, the letter of confirmation on May 4, 2009 is not prepared on May 4, 2009, and is irrelevant to intimidation. Since F is for confirming the investment situation as an investor, it is difficult to view that the victim I did not have any duty.

B. In relation to the power of attorney drawn up on June 11, 2009, since at the time the defendant and the victim I have reached a compromise, the crime of coercion is not established.

② In relation to the issue of conflict, there is no fact that the Defendant has threatened the victim M, and such fact cannot be deemed as a specific malicious notice, and the Defendant intended to make repayment after the lease, and there was no intention to have the victim made payment.

The argument is asserted.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the 4 years of suspended sentence in 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment, and the observation of protection) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he threatened the victim BC as shown in the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence against Defendant A and the sentence against Defendant B and C (a fine of KRW 5 million is imposed on Defendant B, Defendant C: a suspended sentence of KRW 2,00,000,000, and Defendant C: a suspended sentence of KRW 2,000,000,000) of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (as to all the Defendants), are deemed unfair,

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority (as to Defendant A), the prosecutor examined the case ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, and the prosecutor tried at the trial of the case against Defendant A, “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.)” among the names of the crimes against Defendant A, shall be deemed as “special intimidation”, and the applicable provisions of the Act on the Punishment