Defendants are not guilty.

1. Defendants A and B of the facts charged in the instant case need to keep the victim’s G (which is 67 years of age) who suffered monetary damage or to pay the amount of damage by placing the victim’s G (which is 67 years of age) on the part of Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant D, and Defendant A and Defendant B, at the same time, on July 31, 2013, on the part of Defendant A’s mother F, named “multi-level” or “multi-level.” On the other hand, around August 1, 2013, the victim continued to be able to pay the victim with money by taking advantage of the victim’s job and having the victim receive money from the victim around August 1, 2013.

Defendant

D around August 1, 2013, around 21:00, around 303, the victim took the face and head of the victim on the ground that the victim did not repay his/her money, and “I would find the victim’s family through a public offer in China if he/she does not repay his/her money,” and Defendant A and Defendant B, when she sits on the side to monitor the victim, were unable to leave the victim for about seven hours from that time until August 2, 2013 by means of locking the text of the above 303 from August 2, 2013.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly detained the victim.

2. Defendant A and B, at the time of the instant lawsuit by the Defendants, merely sleeped with G voluntarily found with G and I’s house, and there is no other fact that the Defendants jointly with the intent to detain the Defendants, thereby preventing the Defendants from leaving G.

3. Determination

A. The core evidence supporting the instant facts charged is G’s statement at the police station.

However, the above evidence did not consent to the defendants as evidence, and it was proved by the statement of the person making the original statement or was not proven by the statement of the person making the original statement.

Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the above evidence is admissible in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act.