특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복감금등)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Sexual assault against the defendant for forty hours.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the portion of confinement on December 14, 2015, the Defendant did not detain the victim and did not have any purpose of retaliation.
B. The sentence of the court below (the imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and 40 hours order) is too heavy.
2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal
In the first instance trial, the prosecutor detained the name of the crime against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (defensive Confinement, etc.) under Article 276 (1) of the Criminal Act, and applied the provision of the law to the court below, which excludes the part of the facts charged from the purpose of retaliation.
Inasmuch as the subject of the judgment was changed due to the permission of the above application for changes in the indictment, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the part of the charge that the defendant detained the victim is identical to the part that the defendant detained the victim, and the part of the appeal disputing this conclusion is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court, and the following are examined first of all as to these facts (Provided, That the grounds for appeal disputing the purposes of retaliation are no longer subject to the judgment following changes in the indictment). 3. The court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted by the court below, based on the evidence adopted by the court below, and acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning: ① the victim had a considerable degree of fear for the defendant due to the crime of confinement and bodily injury of the defendant on December 3, 2015; ② the defendant threatened his family members to send them without hearing his/her speech after photographing the victim's bridge; and ② the defendant sent them
In full view of the fact that the victim had silentd the request of the victim several times, and the victim took the handphones of the victim who attempted to communicate with the outside, etc., the victim is determined by psychological and intangible obstacles at the time.