A. As to the confinement of the victim on April 1, 2016, there is little time for the Defendant to keep the victim out of the hotel, not for about 10 minutes of confinement, but for the time that the Defendant got out of the hotel, since it is merely about 1 and 2 minutes, there was no intention to detain the Defendant, and even if the commencement of the commission of the crime of confinement is recognized, it does not reach the number of detention.

② As to the detention on April 15, 2016, considering the fact that the Defendant had no intention to commit the crime of confinement, it is difficult to view it as an act of committing the crime of confinement, and the victim also led time rather than actively attempting to leave the prison, it cannot be deemed that the crime of confinement is established.

B. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The offense of confinement on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is a crime which makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to leave a specific area with the freedom of action as the protected legal interest of the person, and thus makes it impossible or extremely difficult for the person to move into a specific area, and can be caused by psychological and intangible obstacles as well as physical and tangible obstacles, and the essence of confinement is not limited to the means and methods of restricting the freedom of action by restricting the freedom of action. It does not necessarily require a complete deprivation of the freedom of action in confinement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do5286, Feb. 11, 2000). Based on the above legal principle, the following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court.