A. Fact-finding the Defendant was a relationship between the victims of ordinary time and the back-going ship, and was drinking with the victims on the day of the instant case in a free atmosphere, and the Defendant did not arrest the victims by assaulting the victims.

Nevertheless, since the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by mistake.

B. Sentencing is not unfair, but unfair.

Even if the court below's sentence (2 million won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of confinement in a judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact refers to an act that restricts the physical freedom of a person to prevent him from leaving a certain place, and the method thereof includes not only the case of using physical disability but also the case of making it impossible for him to go out of fear as an intangible means (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do2083, Jun. 25, 1985). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the victims considered the defendant as the ordinary defendant, and the defendant's act was committed.

G also, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant did not refuse to give instructions to the victims of coal breabbbing; (b) the victims drinking breabbing in such atmosphere; and (c) the victims explicitly demanded the Defendant to return home to the police; (b) the victims were silented; and (c) the victims reported to the police through her birth, etc., the Defendant detained the victims by encouraging fear at the time so that they could not return home.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, it is just that the court below sentenced the defendant guilty, and there is no error of misconception of facts alleged by the defendant.

B. Sentencing;