However, the part of the judgment of the court below which the defendant appealed only to the conviction, and since the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal the dismissal part of the judgment below, the dismissal part of the public prosecution among the judgment below is separated and finalized, and it is excluded from the scope

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the victim was in a state where he was able to freely visit the house, and since he was in possession of a mobile phone, he could make a report or request for assistance from the surrounding area, and the victim actually possessed a mobile phone, and there was a fact that the victim was in a mixed convenience store while carrying the mobile phone. Therefore, there is no fact that the Defendant prevented the victim from leaving the victim under confinement without his intention to leave the house.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment, additional collection of 960,000 won) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is a crime that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to move into a specific area with the freedom of action as the protected legal interest of the person, and thus, the disability that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for the person to move into a specific area can be caused not only by physical and tangible obstacles, but also by psychological and intangible obstacles, and the essence of confinement is not limited to the means and methods that restrict the freedom of action by restricting the freedom of action. Thus, the means and methods are either tangible or intangible, or are not prohibited, and the deprivation of the freedom of action in confinement must be entirely complete.