The case holding that it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent of confinement on the ground that the debtor's act that the creditor did not leave the creditor for about one hour after moving the creditor into the car in order to correct the creditor's disturbance by interest, and it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules, even if the criminal intent of confinement on domestic affairs is recognized, it is not guilty on the ground that it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate

The case holding that it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent of confinement on the ground that the debtor's act that the creditor did not leave the creditor for about one hour after moving the creditor into the car in order to correct the creditor's disturbance by interest, and even if the criminal intent of confinement on domestic affairs is recognized, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

Articles 20 and 276(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Kim Young-il

Attorney Park So-young

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the injury injured by confinement is acquitted.

Punishment of the crime

In collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, the Defendant, who is her husband,

On March 7, 2004, the victim's house located in the Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan-dong, Daegu metropolitan-dong, and the facts are operating the mack cafeteria cafeteria cafeteria with the trade name of "(mutual omission)" from 3-dong, Nam-gu, Daegu metropolitan-dong, and the defendant and non-indicted 1's total debt amount is at least KRW 200 million per month, and the operation status of the above mack cafeteria was difficult to make it difficult for the employees to pay their wages properly. Even if he borrowed money from the victim even though he did not have the ability to pay them properly even if he borrowed money from the victim due to the fact that the mack dong-dong was not completed, the victim was unable to use the 40 million won, and the principal was paid KRW 600,000 per month with the interest of KRW 60,000 per month, but the principal was repaid to the non-indicted 1,000,000 won with the loan from 30,000 won as public official.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement in the second trial record that the defendant borrowed money from the victim at the time and place on which the defendant stated;

1. Statement corresponding thereto by the witness in this court;

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the defendant and non-indicted 1 prepared by the prosecutor, which corresponds to this

1. Statement corresponding thereto among the statement statements concerning receipt of an assistant judicial police officer preparation;

1. Descriptions corresponding thereto among certified copies of the registry prepared by a registrar of the Daegu District Court Month Registry; and

1. corresponding descriptions to the notification of attachment of claims issued by the director of the Southern District Tax Office; and

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

Articles 347(1) and 30 (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the fact that it is an initial offender who has not been over the past, that part of the damage has been recovered, and that the mistake has been pened in depth)

Division of Non-Offense

이 사건 공소사실 중 감금치상의 점의 요지는, "피고인이 2004. 7. 23. 20:00경 피고인이 운영하는 위 식당 앞 주차장에서, 돈을 받으러 온 피고인의 다른 채권자들이 소리치는 것을 본 피해자가 흥분하여 '니가 나한테 그럴 수 있나.'라며 큰소리를 치자, 피고인의 남편인 공소외 1와 함께 피해자의 양팔을 잡아끌어 그 곳에 주차되어 있던 대구 21두1230호 소나타승용차 안으로 밀어넣고 문을 닫은 다음 피해자의 팔을 잡고 약 1시간 동안 피해자가 밖으로 나오지 못하게 하여 감금하고, 그로 인하여 피해자에게 21일간의 치료를 요하는 다발성 좌상 등을 입게 하였다."는 것인바, 피고인은 수사기관 이래 이 법정에 이르기까지 피해자가 돈 문제로 너무 흥분하여 큰소리를 치고 바닥을 뒹구는 등의 행동을 하여 피해자를 진정시킬 의도로 위 차에 태워 함께 이야기를 나눈 것일 뿐 피해자를 강제로 차에 태워 감금할 의사는 없었다며 범행을 부인하고 있다.

The prosecutor submitted the statements to the victim and the victim of the witness, the non-indicted 2, and the investigative agency as evidence consistent with the above facts charged. According to the above evidence, according to the above evidence, the fact that the defendant forced the victim as the husband of the non-indicted 1 is recognized.

그러므로 피고인이 피해자를 감금할 의사로써 그와 같은 행위를 하였는지에 관하여 보건대, 위 증거들에 의하면 피해자는 피고인이 운영하는 식당에서 시간제로 일을 하여 주는 등으로 피고인과 친분관계가 있었는데 피고인의 요청으로 판시 범죄사실과 같이 피고인에게 4,000만 원을 대여해 준 사실, 피해자는 이 사건 당일 딸인 공소외 2, 성명불상의 남자 1명과 함께 피고인이 운영하는 식당에 식사를 하러 갔다가 마침 피고인의 채권자 여러 명이 몰려와 "사장 나오라."고 고함을 지르는 등 소란이 일게 되자, 피고인이 많은 빚을 지고 있어 자신이 피고인에게 빌려 준 돈을 받지 못할지도 모른다고 생각하고, 피고인과 공소외 1에게 "나는 피고인에게 속았다. 나한테 어떻게 이럴 수가 있냐."면서 자신도 고함을 지르고 화가 나 피고인의 뺨을 때리기도 하였으며 극도로 흥분한 상태에서 식당 바깥 주차장으로 나와서 그 곳 바닥을 뒹굴고 하면서 잠깐씩 실신하기도 한 사실, 이에 피고인이 피해자를 진정시키기 위하여 "차 안에 들어가서 얘기 좀 하자."면서 피해자를 차 안으로 끌고 들어간 사실, 그 당시에 식당 주차장에는 피고인의 채권자와 피해자의 딸인 공소외 2 등이 함께 있었을 뿐 아니라 공소외 2은 흥분한 상태이던 피해자의 요구에 의해 약국에 우황청심환을 사러 갔다가 되돌아와 피해자와 피고인이 타고 있던 차의 문을 열어 준 사실, 피고인이 피해자를 태운 승용차가 세워진 장소는 식당 손님 등 일반인의 통행이 빈번한 곳이었던 사실이 인정되는바, 이와 같은 사정들을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 피해자를 차에 태운 후 그 차 안에서 함께 있었던 일련의 행위는 피고인이 피해자의 흥분과 소란을 염려하여 그를 진정시키고자 하는 의도에서 한 것이지 피해자를 감금할 의사로 한 것이라고 단정하기는 어렵다.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the above evidence alone had the intent to detain the victim at the time of the above act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the criminal intent to detain the defendant ( even if the criminal intent to detain the defendant's above act is recognized, in light of the above facts of recognition, it is deemed that the defendant's act is a legitimate act to mislead the victim who was extremely interested and not contrary to social rules).

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)