However, as to the acquittal portion of the reasoning of the judgment below, only the prosecutor filed an appeal, and both the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal the dismissed portion and the guilty portion. The defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal, and the remaining conviction portion excluding the rejection portion and the obstruction of performance of official duties, which are ordinarily concurrent with the confinement, was exempted from the object of public defense between the parties.

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is followed with respect to the part of conviction except the above rejection of prosecution, confinement, and obstruction of performance of official duties against the defendant, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the charge of obstruction of official duties in relation to the acquittal of the reasons of the judgment below

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to the statement of the victim, it can be recognized that the defendant's physical freedom is restricted by correcting the door outside the warehouse where the victim is the victim. Thus, the above act of the defendant constitutes confinement.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of confinement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant assaulted by means of correcting the door of the warehouse in which the victim was a victim, who is a public official of the J-Post Office (year 46) who prepared for delivery of postal items, at the time of the mid-to-mid 14:00, at the time of the mid-to-mid 14:00, at the J-Post Storage of the J-Post Office I, stating that there is no postal item being kept by the victim against his/her request for delivery of postal items.