The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

except that, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, deadly weapons, etc.), among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, there was no fact that the Defendant made a threat by attaching E his/her hand and carrying with himself/herself a dangerous object.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the above facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, D stated in the police that “E was affected by the Defendant several times in the salt farm for the operation of the Defendant,” “E initially taken the floor of monat. After that, E again went back, even if E had taken away again, E brought about the Defendant’s back to her humf, which would bring about the Defendant’s humf to her humf, and then, he/she carried out a humf to her and F with the intention to bring the humf to hume. He/she tried to bring the humf to her humf. He/she hume. He/she also reported his/her humf to her humf.” (Article 122 of the Investigation Records). According to this, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, from October 2012, the Defendant committed several assaults on the ground that the victims who suffered from intellectual disability or mental age fall short of ordinary people and did not work without paying wages at all from the salt farm operated by himself/herself, and had them do work before others’ salt, and embezzled the price for the work, as well as the so-called so-called “saton old-age” case emerged as a social problem, the Defendant had the victim F and D detained with intent to destroy evidence by threatening the investigation into the victim.

The defendant's behavior is prejudicial to the value and dignity of the victims who are socially weak.