All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant A1) 1’s assertion as to whether the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) was established is limited to keeping the victim’s escorted, and Defendant A did not directly participate in the act of having the victim board the vehicle and escorting. Therefore, Defendant A’s act of having the victim transferred to Defendant B does not constitute “joint” as provided in Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. ② The act of claiming a legitimate act or responsibility from April 2007 to April 2007, the victim’s assertion of a legitimate act or responsibility did not constitute a crime of “joint confinement” as provided in Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. Even if the victim received medical treatment for mental illness for three or more years from the time of the occurrence of the instant case, there is sufficient reason to determine that the victim was a need for hospitalized treatment. The final determination of the need for hospital’s necessity is that Defendant A did not follow the direction of his parent, and that Defendant A did not go against the victim’s intent of hospitalization or the specialized hospital’s opinion.

B. The lower court’s judgment against the Defendants.