The Defendant has not conspiredd to commit each of the crimes in this case with E, D and E.

Although it is true that the defendant 10 times more than 10 victims in Htel, there is no fact that the farm and the court did not assault the victim, intimidation the victim in knife, or let the victim prepare a written waiver of body.

The defendant, even in the above officetels, did not do assault the victim for the purpose of receiving a loan certificate or a physical abandonment certificate, and the victim voluntarily prepared the loan certificate and each letter. Thus, the court below held that the defendant had the victim prepare a physical abandonment letter, etc., which is not obligated to do so through assault or intimidation, erred in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

At the time, the Defendant did not prohibit the victim from leaving an officetel, and the victim was able to escape from the Defendant for long time, and the movement of the victim to the farm or the law to the farm or the law to the vehicle operated by the Defendant, so it is difficult to regard the act of confinement as an act of confinement, and there is no causal relationship between the Defendant’s assault, intimidation, and the taking of things, etc.

Since the body suffered by the victim is minor enough to recover nature, it is difficult to view it as the injury of the crime of robbery. Since the Defendant’s assault did not reach the degree of suppressing the victim’s resistance, it can only be viewed as a crime of robbery, not a crime of robbery.

In order for the victim to check his domicile on his resident registration, the victim voluntarily changed his resident registration certificate to the defendant, and there is no fact that the defendant forced the defendant to take it away. The defendant is merely a temporary preservation of the victim's resident registration certificate since the victim returned the repayment plan after one week.