Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for six years, by imprisonment for four years, and by imprisonment for three years, respectively.

The number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be 74 days each of the above punishment against the defendant 1 and 3, and 76 days each of the above punishment against the defendant 2.

The seized 50CCTex 1 (Evidence 1 of the record of search and seizure prepared by Nonindicted 3 on September 16, 2007), 1 column (Evidence 1 of the record of search and seizure prepared by Nonindicted 4 on September 16, 2007), 1 strings (Evidence 2 of the record of search and seizure recorded by Nonindicted 4 on September 16, 2007), 1 strings (Evidence 3 of the same record of seizure), 1 strings (Evidence 4 of the same record of search and seizure), 1 3 5 strings (Evidence 8 of the same record of search and seizure), 1 20 strings (Evidence 9 of the record of search and seizure), 1 5 strings (Evidence 1 of the record of search and seizure), 1 30 strings (Evidence 1 of the record of search and seizure), 1 5 strings (Evidence 1 of the record of search and seizure prepared by Nonindicted 5G).

The punishment (Defendant 1: 6 years of imprisonment, Defendant 2: 4 years of imprisonment, Defendant 3: 3 years of imprisonment) that the court below sentenced to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendants, Article 5-2(2)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 287 of the Criminal Act are established when a person who kidnaps or induces a minor acquires or demands property or property benefits by taking advantage of concerns over the parents or other persons threatened with safety of the minor. In this case, the Defendants’ abductioned the victim Nonindicted 1 (the age of 15) and demanded KRW 300 million by notifying or threatening the victim Nonindicted 2, her mother, but the Defendants did not obtain the said money from the victim.

Meanwhile, Article 5-2(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that an attempted crime under Article 5-2(2) shall be punished. However, as in the instant case, in a case where the Defendants were kidnapped by minors and demanded goods by using them (the request reaches Nonindicted 2), the crime of property demand under Article 5-2(2)1 has already been established, and thus it is difficult to present an attempted crime, the lower court committed an illegal act against the Defendants, which affected the judgment, and therefore, the lower court was no longer able to maintain it in this respect.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the defendants' grounds for appeal, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

Articles 5-2(2)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 287 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of a request for property after kidnapping a minor, the choice of limited imprisonment), Article 5-2(2)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 287 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of inflicting bodily injury and confinement on kidnapped minor, and the

1. Mitigation of self-denunciation (Defendant 2);

Articles 52(1) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes resulting from the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Kidnapping, Inducement, etc.) due to a request for property after abduction of a minor with the largest punishment];

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15488, Apr. 2, 2006)

1. Determination of sentence and principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration;

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six years and by imprisonment with prison labor for four years, and by imprisonment with prison labor for more than five years for Defendant 3, but only the above Defendant filed an appeal, so the above Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

1. The inclusion of the number of days pending trial before sentencing

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Confiscation (Defendant 1, 3);

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Jung-chul (Presiding Judge)