The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant

B, C, and D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In the facts of the crime found guilty by the lower court, the part that the said Defendant forced the victim to be hospitalized in K Mental Hospital for 19 days from August 10, 2011 to August 29 of the same month was erroneous in finding facts. In other words, the said Defendant did not deceiving his family members that “the victim is under threat from organized violence and thus must be treated at a mental hospital and should be hiddenly paid.” The said Defendant voluntarily consented to the hospitalization of the victim in the mental hospital, and the said Defendant voluntarily consented to the hospitalization of the victim in the mental hospital. The said Defendant was lawfully hospitalized in the mental hospital in the mental hospital through a meeting of K Hospital, which is the doctor of K Hospital, and thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute the crime of confinement under Article 276(1) of the Criminal Act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding unjust sentencing. 2) The Defendant’s imprisonment for three years against the above Defendant is unjust.

B. The sentence against the above Defendants B, C, and D (Defendant B: imprisonment of two years, Defendant C, and Defendant D: imprisonment of one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant A (Article 1 of the original judgment) 1) The crime of confinement under Article 276(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an offense committed by a person (it is established upon confinement of a victim. Here, confinement means a crime that restricts a person’s freedom of physical activities at a place by making it impossible or remarkably difficult for a person to leave a certain place.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, Paragraph 1 of this Article is the time when the defendant was the original trial.