The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (related to the part not guilty of the injury caused by confinement as stated in the judgment of the court below) is as follows: (a) the defendant forced the victim to board the body of the victim by force; and (b) caused the victim's bodily injury to the back seat by taking the body of the victim's arms and side fright, and caused the victim's bodily injury to the front part and the left side of the parts and the left side of the parts, the upper part of the upper part, the right shoulder, the right shoulder, and the upper part under the upper part of the upper part, the right shoulder, and the upper part of the body, etc.; and (c) the patient was issued a written diagnosis of injury requiring medical treatment for seven days after finding the hospital on the day following the crime. It is evident that the defendant's act

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the charge of causing bodily injury resulting from confinement on the ground that it is difficult to view the above injury as an injury in the crime of causing bodily injury to a victim. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

Judgment

The summary of this part of the facts charged was the date and time stated in Paragraph 1 of the facts constituting the crime of confinement as indicated in the judgment below, and at the place indicated in Paragraph 1 of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below, the Defendant inflicted a bodily injury on the victim, such as a shoulder or arms, which requires treatment for about seven days during the process of detaining the victim.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below held that the victim's shoulder and arms were red, but the victim did not receive separate treatment after receiving a diagnosis of injury, such as the shoulder and the string of the above part on June 30, 2016, and stated to the investigation agency that there was no significant inconvenience in daily life, and in light of the above circumstances, the victim's wife suffered from the defendant's act does not receive treatment, even if he did not receive treatment.