In a case where the defendant was prosecuted for committing confinement of Gap for about 2 hours in a way that he did not go back to the warehouse, such as theft of the articles displayed in Et which he operated by Gap (16 years of age)'s friendship Eul and escape together with Gap, attach Gap, show his attitude that the defendant reported to the police without doing so, and prevent the defendant from using mobile phones, and by threatening Gap's use of mobile phones, and thereby preventing Gap from going home to the warehouse, the case holding that the defendant detained Gap, and the same applies to the case where the defendant was given a certain freedom of action to Gap at the time, and the defendant's act does not constitute a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.

After discovering cans, beers, and milk displayed in Mat Art 16 years old at the Mat that the defendant himself operates, stolen the cans, beers, and milk displayed in Mat, and sticking them to Mat, the defendant is prosecuted for having detained Gap for about two hours in a way that he does not go to the warehouse, such as making it difficult for the defendant to use the cell phone by threatening the defendant to report to the police station. It is a case where the defendant was prosecuted for having detained Gap for about two hours in a way that he does not go to the warehouse, such as making him write a written statement and her reflects.

The case affirming the first instance court's finding that the Defendant's act did not go beyond the Defendant's surveillance even if he did not go against the Defendant's order, on the ground that the Defendant's act did not go beyond the Defendant's 40 adult male, and on the ground that the Defendant's act did not go beyond the Defendant's freedom to leave the warehouse in a marina, and it was impossible or difficult to recognize that the Defendant's act did not go beyond the Defendant's order to leave the prison due to the lack of sufficient time in light of the following: (a) the Defendant's act did not go beyond the Defendant's instruction; and (b) the Defendant's act was not likely to go beyond the Defendant's order to leave the prison due to the lack of sufficient time in light of the fact that the Defendant's act did not go beyond the Defendant's freedom to leave the prison, and (c) the Defendant's act was not likely to go beyond the Defendant's order to actively in an atmosphere where the Defendant's oral evaluation was conducted by a juvenile with less time in an atmosphere.

Articles 20 and 276(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Long-term Forwarding et al.

Attorney Jeon Soo-soo

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

At around 20:00 on October 6, 2018, the Defendant discovered that the victim’s pro-Japanese, Nonindicted 2, who entered Maart, stolen cans, beer, milk, etc. possessed by the Defendant, displayed in Maart, and fleded with the victim, and then the victim was knife with the victim, and then the victim was knife with the victim. The Defendant was the accomplice of the victim. The Defendant was the accomplice of the crime of larceny. It is how how to report the internal police station to the police station. However, how the Defendant was reported to the police station, the Defendant appears to have expressed his attitude to the police station, and the mobile phone was prevented from using the cell phone, which prevents the victim from taking advantage of the victim’s cleaning goods from leaving the warehouse, and prevented the victim from taking them back to the same day for 20 hours in order to prevent the victim from taking them back to the warehouse:20 hours.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness

1. A criminal investigation report (Attachment to CCTV images for crime prevention), a criminal investigation report (Attachment to ○○ CCTV images);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 276(1) of the Criminal Act, Selection of a fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the defendant prepared a written statement as part of giving lessons to the victim, and the victim remains in this process only when the victim remains in the marina of this case, and there is no means to detain the victim, and even if the defendant's act constitutes confinement, it constitutes an act that does not violate social rules.

The essence of the crime of confinement is a crime that makes it impossible or very difficult for a person to deviate from a specific area because the protected legal interest is the freedom of human behavior. The essence of the crime is to detain the freedom of human behavior. There is no restriction on the means and method of restricting the freedom of action. The disability that makes it impossible or very difficult for a person to deviate from a specific area can be caused not only by physical and tangible disorder but also by psychological and intangible disorder. As such, the means and method of the crime of confinement are neither tangible nor intangible nor any way to commit the crime of confinement. In addition, the crime of confinement does not necessarily require a complete deprivation of the freedom of human behavior to establish the crime of confinement. Even if a certain freedom of life is allowed within a specific area, it does not necessarily interfere with the establishment of the crime of confinement, as long as it is impossible or very difficult for a person to deviate from a specific area by means of tangible or intangible means or methods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do1036, May 26, 1998).

In light of the above legal principles, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, namely, the defendant and the non-indicted 2, even if the defendant were not accompanied by the victim in the warehouse, the victim and the non-indicted 2, as long as they were staying in the warehouse, they would be the criminal suspect. If you do not write personal information, they would not send the statement to the house. It would be possible to prepare a statement, and the victim could not leave the warehouse in the marina, and the warehouse in which the victim was detained could not leave the space in the marina. The warehouse in which the victim was detained can open to the outside and the entrance of the marina, and even if the defendant was living in the marina during the time when the victim was detained in the warehouse, the victim could not get out of the defendant's surveillance, as long as the defendant was living in the marina, and the victim could not actively leave the defendant's freedom to leave from the defendant's appearance and did not actively leave the defendant's movement.

Furthermore, as seen earlier, it is difficult to evaluate that the Defendant’s act of preventing the victim from leaving the garment in light of motive or purpose in light of the motive or purpose, or by using a reasonable means or method in an urgent situation, even though the Defendant could have instructed the victim and reported it to the relevant agencies, such as schools and police stations.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

Judges Jin-Spot