A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Each of the facts charged in the instant case is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, who attempted to conflict and attack, committed a crime of violence, which is a constituent of the Seoul Metropolitan Government’s organization “Sacheon-gu wave” or “Sacheon-gu’s Macheon-gu’s Maol-gu’s Maol-gu’s Mancheon-gu’s Mancheon-gu’s Mancheon-gu’s Mancheon-do’s Mancheon-do’s Mancheon-gu’s Mancheon-gu’s Mancheon-gu’s Mancheon-gu’s Ma

On October 1, 2012, at the end of 04:00, the Defendant: (a) demanded the victim H who operates a “news” (mutual G) in front of the F restaurant near the Bupyeong-si E-si, Seocheon-si; (b) “I would see that I would be able to prevent any other news release; and (c) would protect if I would like to do so; and (d) would pay 10-20% of the revenues from the sidewalk at the expense of protecting the news report; and (e) would like to cause harm if I would refuse to do so.

As a result, the Defendant received 750,000 won in total from the food victim, who was frighten, to December 17, 2012, from 04:00,000, two times a week at the front line of the Defendant’s residence located in Busan-si, Busan-si, and 2 to 30,000 won a week at the front line of the Defendant’s residence.

B. On December 1, 2012, the Defendant demanded the Victim L ( South Korea and 30 years old) operating a “news” (mutual K) on the front side of the Seocheon-gu J taxi platform at Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, U.S., to “I would resolve if there is an organized violence and problem with another news station that prevents him from running a business in the E Station, and would pay 10-20% of the revenues from the news station at the expense of protecting the Internet station.” In doing so, the Defendant sawed the above method.

Accordingly, the defendant received money from the food victim, and attempted to do so, but the victim failed to comply with it, so he did not commit an attempted crime.

2. The Defendant is a criminal organization in which the Defendant was aware of, without paying the protection cost, the victim N (ma, 35 years of age) who is the owner of the business, who did not properly pay the protection cost, thereby causing damage to the Defendant.