The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (i) On July 22, 2011, the lower court determined otherwise and determined that the Defendant did not capture the victim for the purpose of receiving money from the victim C (hereinafter “victim”), but rather attempted to communicate with the victim. The Defendant’s restaurant operator, who was at the time when the Defendant was waiting with the victim in order to obtain his/her own vehicle, had a delay in time when he/she completed the business and left the knife while leaving the knife at the time of leaving the knife, and even if the Defendant did not have kidnapped the victim for profit for 5 hours, the lower court determined otherwise.

Dob. The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

2. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, among the previous facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor ex officio judgment applied for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to change the name of the crime from "the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes", and Article 5-2 (4) and Article 288 (1) of the Criminal Act from among the applicable provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to "Article 288 (1) of the Criminal Act", and "the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "the

However, the judgment of the court below has such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the defendant's above assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, it will be examined below.

3. The police of the defendant, the prosecutor's office and the court below's each statement in the judgment of the court below, the statement in D's police, and the police of C's own.