The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) No. 1) No. 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the List of Offenses: The fact that no money was paid in relation to (1) a net time; (2) a person received money in relation to paragraphs (3) and (8,9, and (10) a net time, but the victim's mobile phone fee was paid by the defendant.

A list of crimes (1) did not speak in each paragraph at a net time, and cannot be viewed as intimidation of the end of paragraphs 1, 9, and 11 at a net time.

2) The point of confinement is not confinement because the victims were in a state that they could freely leave the vehicle.

3) The forgery of a private document and the event of a falsified investigation document: The Government prepared an application for joining a mobile phone with the consent of the victims.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Intimidation as a means of a crime of intimidation refers to the threat of harm likely to restrict a person's freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of execution of an intention. Bad faith notice does not necessarily require to be made by the method of specification, and it is sufficient if it is intended to have the other party recognize that it would cause harm and injury to the other party by language or communication, and even if not directly, it may indirectly be made through a third party other than the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the other, and if the perpetrator demands a delivery of property or a pecuniary benefit by using an unlawful above age based on his occupation, status, etc., and if the other party fails to comply with the request, it shall also be a threat of harm and injury (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do709, May 13, 2003) and the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the party shall be duly adopted and duly adopted.