중감금등
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) On March 25, 2018, the Defendant committed a crime (Article 1 of the facts charged in the original judgment) on March 25, 2018 (Article 1 of the Criminal Act), under an agreement with the victim, who had a relationship with the victim at the time of the crime, and committed a conflict with the victim, and only he was at the time of the victim’s scambling, and there was no fact that he forced the victim to go into the telecom, as described in this part of the facts charged, and did not have committed a cruel act
In addition, the defendant was sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim and did not commit rape.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of heavy confinement and rape guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
B) The Defendant committed the crime of April 7, 2018 (criminal facts in the judgment of the court below) committed the Defendant’s car prior to the instant case, and was committed several times in a two-dimensional manner on the Defendant’s car. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant commemorated the Defendant’s birth date and did not express the Defendant’s intent to refuse any particular refusal, and instead did not force the Defendant to leave the Defendant’s car at the beginning, or to leave the seat until the Defendant arrived at the seat of the car. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of detention on April 22, 2018 (criminal facts in the judgment of the court below) and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant committed the Defendant on April 22, 2018 (criminal facts in the judgment of the court below) and detained the victim at a passenger car or an Felel on April 22, 2018.
In particular, the victim did not request the help of escape to the employees of the above holder at the time, but did not request the defendant to use the gate toilet at the time of drinking, and the defendant only met the victim, and there was no humbling or assaulting the victim.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the charges of confinement guilty.