Among them, the guilty part against the defendants (including the innocent part in the reason) and the defendant D and E respectively.

A. As to the part that Defendant A and B B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) was forced to put the victim V into an emergency transport vehicle and detained the victim at the hospital, Defendant B thought that it was the way to put the victim at the mental problem and receive hospitalized treatment. Defendant B was determined by professional judgment based on the knowledge and experience of a psychiatrist, so there was no possibility of recognizing illegality in Defendant B. In particular, Defendant B did not provide the victim’s mental symptoms to Defendant D and E, and there was no possibility of recognizing illegality. In light of the fact that Defendant B was hospitalized by Defendant B as an instrument of indirect law, it is logical to suppress Defendant B’s act of taking the victim as an instrument of indirect law. 2) As to the part that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B, etc., and detained the victim, this case does not relate to the division of property between Defendant A and the victim.

Defendant

On January 3, 2013, Defendant B and C did not know that the victim was on board the emergency transport vehicle and hospitalized in the X hospital. On January 4, 2013, Defendant B and C did not participate in the process of sending the victim to the Z hospital again on January 8, 2013.

However, it is recognized that Defendant A knew of the above acts of Defendant B, etc. and impliedly impliedly, but thereby cannot be held liable for the crime of conspiracy and conspiracy against Defendant A’s act of detaining the victim.

On January 4, 2013, the entry of Defendant A and B into a house where the victim resides on January 4, 2013 in relation to the joint residence intrusion of Defendant A and B is based on the previous hospitalized victim’s clothes, etc. and the mental condition of the victim.