A. The change of the defendant's complaint that he did not come to the family of the victim in order to spread the mother of the victim at the time of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle (not guilty part) is false, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant left the victim from the protection relationship and placed the victim under his factual control.

B. The court below's decision on unreasonable sentencing: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 5 years of probation and employment restriction order.

2. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: considering the fact that the defendant was the victim's house, and the defendant was the victim's house, and followed several divisions with the victim, the place of arrival was limited to the victim's house, and the victim's mother's report at the victim's house led to the case in this case, the evidence submitted by the prosecution alone was the criminal intent to move the victim under his physical and real control.

For the reason that it is difficult to readily conclude that the victim was placed under his/her actual control by deceiving or treating the victim, the lower court acquitted him/her on this part.

In light of the records, the court below's measure is just and acceptable in light of the evidence cited by the prosecutor, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor, and even if the defendant's assertion that he/she went to the victim's home to harm the victim's mother, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed differently.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, as stated in its reasoning.