The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles mean that the defendant would report the victim's tax evasion in order to receive benefits not received from the victim, and there was no intention to commit the crime of extortion.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be recognized.

(A) From October 2006, the Defendant retired from office around March 201, while serving as the secretary of the law firm to which the victim belongs.

(B) After retirement, the Defendant demanded that the victim pay incentives and retirement allowances payable to the victim, and the victim paid KRW 1,124,000 to the Defendant on June 25, 2012.

(C) On July 2, 2012, the Defendant filed a petition with the Labor Agency if the victim had been in arrears with retirement pay, and on July 10, 2012, demanded additional payment of KRW 20 million to the victim’s contact place with the National Tax Service on or around July 10, 2012. The Defendant stated that “If the victim fails to comply, he/she would report the victim’s tax evasion to the National Tax Service and undergo an investigation by the National Tax Service.” As such, the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the victim.

(2) Even if the defendant has a claim against the victim, if he/she obtained the other party's property or property benefits by means of intimidation exceeding the degree that is difficult to be accepted by social norms by undermining the exercise of his/her right (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000). Thus, the defendant's act of notifying the victim's tax evasion to receive his/her unpaid incentives and retirement allowances and allowing the victim to undergo an investigation by the National Tax Service is deemed to be a means of intimidation exceeding the degree that is difficult to be acceptable by social norms.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The instant case of unfair sentencing.