Among them, cruel acts in the crime of confinement refer to all tangible or intangible acts causing physical or mental pain which may endanger the life.

If an act of assault or intimidation during confinement was committed as a means to prevent the victim from escaping or to maintain the state of confinement, such assault or intimidation is not a separate offense of confinement. However, if an act of assault or intimidation during confinement was committed by another motive or cause without being limited to such means or purpose, it constitutes a severe offense of confinement, not a crime of confinement, but a serious offense of assault or intimidation.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, although the lower court partially inappropriate part of the reasoning, the lower court’s conclusion that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “cruel act” in relation to the crime of confinement and intimidation, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “cruel act” in the crime of confinement

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.