The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding confinement of mistake of facts, the victim voluntarily brought the defendant's motor vehicle, and the defendant did not place the victim on his own by force as stated in the judgment of the court below.

As to the violence, the defendant only saw a victim's lar, and the victim goes over by hand, and the defendant did not cause the victim to do so as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The sentence of a fine of two million won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of mistake as to the charge of confinement (1) The crime of confinement is a crime that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to move into a specific area with the freedom of action of the person as the protected legal interest. It is possible not only by physical and tangible obstacles, but also by psychological and intangible obstacles, which makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to move into a specific area. The essence of confinement is neither tangible nor intangible nor intangible, nor any restriction on the means and methods of restricting the freedom of action by restricting the freedom of action. It does not necessarily need to be completely deprived of the freedom of action in confinement (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do5286, Feb. 11, 200). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the defendant, while working in a region with the victim while the victim was in contact with the victim, but the victim was forced to move into a motor vehicle in front of the victim, but also the defendant was forced to move into the motor vehicle in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.