All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts (A) [2015 order 6248] In relation to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement), the Defendant was arrested at the police by discovering the victim upon request from the mother of the victim to find out the victim who was dispatched from the mother of the victim, and was arrested at the police, and then transferred the victim to the person with parental authority upon delegation by the person with parental authority. As such, the Defendant constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

(B) [2016 Highest 1549] In relation to fraud, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, even though it could sufficiently be found that the facts charged in the instant case were guilty of the injury and the attack, and [2016 order 1380] fraud.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court rejected the said assertion on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of its stated reasoning, comprehensively taking account

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is conducted, the lower court is so decided.