A. Fact-finding misunderstandings (the Defendants) did not intend to force the victim to be hospitalized, and thus, the Defendants had the intent to arrest the Defendants or to instigate the Defendants to commit an intentional act.

In addition, the Defendants could not expect the injury to the injured person.

B. In light of the legal principles, Defendant A (Defendant A) intended to transfer the victim to a hospital capable of performing brain disease inspection according to the doctor’s opinion that it is necessary to conduct a close inspection. As such, Defendant A’s act constitutes a justifiable act.

(c)

The punishment (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) sentenced by the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted that the mistake of fact was identical to the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment.

The lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the following grounds: (a) under the title of “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”, based on the adopted evidence, the Defendants’ act of transferring the victim to the hospital rather than treating the victim; (b) forced the victim to be hospitalized in the hospital through a private transfer in the form of hospitalization under the Mental Health Act in order to avoid the conflict between the victim and the distribution of inherited property, rather than treating the victim; and (c) the Defendants’ intent to arrest the victim and to aid the victim was sufficiently predicted during the process of forced transfer of the victim.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law affecting the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

Therefore, the Defendants’ .