A. In light of the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim and against his mistake, the sentence of the court below (the penalty of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the arguments in this case, including the following facts: (a) the Defendant detained the victim for a long time exceeding five hours; (b) the Defendant committed the above acts on the ground that the victim has a different male-child district; (c) the risk and the poor nature of the crime were unfavorable to the Defendant; (d) the Defendant agreed with the victim that the victim does not want to be punished; and (e) the Defendant appears to have an attitude against the Defendant’s mistake; and (e) the Defendant appears to have committed the crime in this case, which are favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant appears to have committed a contingent act in the state of appraisal; and (e) the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate; and (e) it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too heavy or too unreasonable because it is too uneasible or too unreasonable.

3. The appeal of this case by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.