The judgment below

The remainder of the compensation order, excluding the rejection thereof, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of one and half years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts (the part of the judgment of the court in the original instance) was thought that the defendant was in the part of the victim who did not respond to sexual traffic, and reported the fact to the police. Among them, H, a multi-party employee of the victim, expressed a desire and threatened with the victim by making a visit to the maternity.

Therefore, in order to protect the defendant's own, the defendant was out of visiting the telecom, and the police took out a clerical error, and there is no fact that the defendant was detained while taking a bath or intimidation against the victim.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be acknowledged that: (a) on April 4, 2014, the defendant demanded sexual traffic to the victim who delivered coffees at the tevisher as indicated in the judgment below; (b) the victim refused this request; and (c) reported to the police that “the victim did not cut off a coffee (not satising to do so) the victim’s sexual traffic; and (d) even though H who caused the victim to recover during the time required by the police to visit the tevis and present the victim, the defendant was unable to leave the tevis by threateninging the victim until the police reaches the time.

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the above facts of recognition and the records of this case, namely, there is no evidence to acknowledge that H threatened the Defendant, unlike the Defendant’s assertion, ② even if H threatening the Defendant to open a telecom, if the Defendant prevented the victim from leaving the telecom because he did not engage in commercial sex acts, the crime of confinement should be deemed to have already been committed. ③ In light of the above circumstances, the Defendant did not have any justifiable reason to continue to take the victim into the telecom.