The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

seizure from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) do not have any mistake of facts (as to the injury caused by confinement), and there was no fact that the Defendant forced the victim D to put the victim D on the Defendant’s vehicle, or inflicted any injury on the said victim in the process. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges on the injury caused by confinement in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (seven years of imprisonment)

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

In addition, the attachment period of the attachment order ordered by the court below is too short.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the Defendant’s case concerning the assertion of mistake of facts regarding the Defendant’s crime of confinement is a crime of making it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to leave a specific area with the protected legal interest as the freedom of action of the person, and thus making it impossible or extremely difficult for the person to move into a specific area, not only physical or tangible obstacles, but also psychological or intangible obstacles. The essence of confinement is not limited to the means and methods that restrict the freedom of action by restricting the freedom of action. Thus, the means and methods are either tangible or intangible or not, and the deprivation of the freedom of action in confinement does not necessarily need to be entirely permitted, and even if a certain freedom of life is allowed within a specific area under confinement, there is no complaint about the establishment of the crime of confinement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do102, Mar. 24, 200). Examining the legal principles as seen earlier and the evidence duly adopted by the lower court in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court.