The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A, C, D, and E are punished by a fine of KRW 10 million, Defendant B, F, and G are punished by each fine of KRW 8 million.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case, a misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principles, the victim, against the rules of employment at J school, demands the Defendants to retire unfairly, and the Defendants refused the request, demanded the establishment of the retirement age and school, and conducted legitimate disputes, and conducted a little excessive speech during the course of consultation. Ultimately, on December 1, 2014, the victim agreed to the J school teachers including the Defendants to “to guarantee retirement age, but to pay the above payment for retirement according to the agreed standard if the retirement age is not possible due to the school circumstances.” The content of the said agreement, including the above payment, was reached between the victim and the entire teachers, and it was conducted by mutual consultation for nine months.

Defendants wanting to guarantee retirement age even after the above agreement, but the victim demanded to complete retirement with respect to the private individual Defendants in continuous service for not less than 20 years and received compensation for retirement in accordance with the above agreement.

As can be seen, the injured party cannot be deemed to have reached the above agreement through intimidation by the Defendants and paid the said payment on retirement, and the Defendants did not have the intent to obtain unjust enrichment, and there was no dispositive act, which constitutes the elements of the crime of extortion, but the judgment of the court below convicts the Defendant of the facts charged, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the six months of probation, one year of probation, and one year of probation against Defendant A, C, D, E, and F) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine constitutes intimidation, which is the means of the crime of intimidation, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Even if the Defendants’ notice of harm was used as a means of realizing a legitimate right, the means and method of realizing the right are socially accepted.