The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the dismissed part and the dismissed part of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the Defendant, at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, sent the victim to a vehicle, and did not arrest the victim only before the Seopo Police Station requested by the victim.

The judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts. In other words, the victim was frightened from the two interference distance from the Sinpo-si on October 27, 2013, but the Defendant was driving the cargo, which was passing away from the vehicle, and the Defendant was forced to drive the vehicle onto the westpo-si wharf, rather than the victim’s collection direction, and the Defendant was frightd to fright down the vehicle, and was frightly opened a door to the Defendant, and made a statement that the Defendant was unable to get off the Defendant. The victim was frightly reported to 112 under the circumstance of being pushed down the door. The victim made a statement that is highly reliable in the statement. The Defendant did not have any continuous confinement in the direction different from the victim’s destination or at the victim’s demand, and even if the Defendant did not get off the vehicle, the victim did not have any other reason to recognize the fact that the Defendant reported the vehicle to 1212.

The lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, special theft and injury in the instant crime.