The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. A. A person who first arranges a speech to reach an agreement with money is not the defendant, but the victim, and the defendant only talks about KRW 50 million in order to ppuri the victim.

In light of these circumstances, there was no intention or intention to obtain unjust enrichment from the defendant.

B. Even if a person is guilty, the lower court’s penalty of KRW 3 million (fine 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As a means of a crime of misunderstanding a mistake of facts, intimidation refers to the threat of harm that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, and the threat of harm is sufficient if it is sufficient to have the other party aware that it would cause harm and injury to the other party without necessarily requiring the method of specification. Although such a threat of harm and injury is used as a means of realizing a legitimate right, it shall be deemed that the method of realizing the right goes beyond the permissible level and scope under the social norms, so long as the method of realizing the right exceeds the permissible level and scope under the social norms.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2422, Mar. 10, 1995). The lower court rejected the assertion identical to the Defendant’s allegation of mistake of facts on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The victim of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the family of the defendant caused the failure of the defendant by establishing an indefinite relationship with the defendant's wife, that the defendant has the damage claim caused by the adultery against the victim, and that the crime of this case is committed an attempted crime.