A. The Defendant, in collaboration with D, did not place a victim under confinement, and did not have any sexual intercourse with the victim as well as rape.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of statutory confinement is a crime that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to leave a specific area with the freedom of action as the legal protection of the person’s legal interest. As such, the harm that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to move into a specific area is not only physical and tangible obstacles, but also psychological and intangible obstacles, and the essence of confinement is possible through psychological and intangible obstacles, and there are no restrictions on the means and methods that restrict the freedom of action by restricting the freedom of action. As such, the means and methods are tangible or intangible or intangible, and the deprivation of the freedom of action in confinement does not necessarily need to be entirely deprived of the freedom of action. Thus, the freedom of life was allowed within a specific area under confinement.

Even if there is no complaint as to the establishment of the crime of confinement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do102, Mar. 24, 2000). B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that physical, tangible, psychological, and intangible obstacles, which make it extremely difficult for the victim to leave the guest room of the Gel, have been formed by the Defendant’s speech and behavior, thereby constituting the crime of confinement.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

(1) A victim was hospitalized at the police on June 12, 2014 at around 09:00.

H Hospital 3rd floor to Gelize with the defendant.