However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 00:00 on June 10, 2015, the Defendant detained the victim D (at the age of 49) who had a relationship with her husband in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, for a period of 1 hour and 30 minutes, by threatening the victim D (at the age of 503) to leave the said female to the said female house on the ground that the victim got out of the past without drinking, thereby preventing the escape of the said female house, resulting in a panty only with the panty, and thereby preventing him from taking back the said female tape, and threatening him to “I would not think that he would she would not come back and go back to the school with his face.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of the statutes on records of seizure, list of seizure, and photographs of tapes;

1. Article 276 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for one month to five years; and

2. There is no basic area (six months to one year) of the sentencing criteria (the scope of recommending punishment) applicable (the date of July 1, 2015) (the general criteria for arrest and confinement).

3. In light of the circumstances, methods and patterns of the instant crime, etc., the sentence of sentence: (a) the nature of the instant crime was nonexistent; (b) the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he would not appear in front of the victim; (c) the Defendant had no past criminal record; (d) the Defendant submitted a written application to the effect that he would not appear; and (e) the victim would not appear in front of the victim; and (c) it is difficult to view that the extent of confinement is excessive without the duration of detention; (d) the Defendant attempted to prevent the victim from being boomed, but the Defendant did not actually stop from leaving the victim; and (e) the Defendant reported tobacco with the victim by opening a door after talking the victim more than one hour; and (e) when the Defendant bought tobacco, the victim was the victim.