The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, and confiscation) of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquittal portion, the Defendant’s admission into the victim H, and then recognized the fact of diving. Even if the Defendant did not open the door as alleged by the Defendant, the victim H was physically deprived of the Defendant’s threat, and thus was unable to escape from the G main office. Therefore, the Defendant should be deemed to have detained the victim H. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the prosecutor, the lower court determined that the Defendant was acquitted of detention among the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant had an intentional intent to detain the victim H, and that it is difficult to avoid the possibility that the victim H had left the GJ as his own child.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's determination of not guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no new evidence submitted in the trial. Thus, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, and the Defendant’s additional agreement with the victim J and the victim H when they were in the trial, and the Defendant was in the trial of the trial of the case.