The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not notify the victim of any specific harm, and only driven the vehicle with the victim’s consent.

In full view of the fact that the victim did not have been detained or threatened as stated in the facts charged, the victim stated in the investigative agency that he did not have been detained or threatened, and that the victim parked a vehicle in the vicinity of the fourth police box, or that the Defendant was also within the four police boxes following the victim’s behind the crime, the Defendant was also subject to the four police boxes, etc., the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in violation of the principle of presumption of innocence, even though the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was not recognized to have threatened and detained the

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the appellate court under the current Criminal Procedure Act has the nature of the so-called ex post facto review, which has a substantial part of the ex post facto review elements, and thus, the appellate court should consider the characteristics of the structure of the first instance judgment in determining the legitimacy

Therefore, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, the first instance court's decision was clearly erroneous in the first instance court's decision when it is intended to re-examine the first instance court's decision ex post facto and ex post facto.

There should be reasonable grounds to believe that the argument leading to the fact-finding is in violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and there should be no reasonable grounds to reverse the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court without such exceptional circumstances.