The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of all the charges of this case, on the grounds that the act of the Defendant on the charge of this case (the injury by confinement, indecent act by force, and intrusion of residence) meets the elements of each crime and the Defendant had the criminal intent to commit such crime. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles

2. The additional prosecutor of the ancillary charges following the amendment of the indictment has reached the court, while maintaining the facts charged with the injury caused by confinement which was judged not guilty at the court below, and applying for the amendment of the indictment to add the charges of special intimidation, such as Paragraph 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Act, and the applicable provisions of Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" to the charges of special intimidation as stated in Article 28

Therefore, the part on the injury caused by confinement among the judgment of the court below which is the only primary charge is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, we still examine the injury caused by confinement, which is the primary facts charged, and the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the remaining facts charged, as it is subject to the judgment of this

3. Judgment on the injury caused by confinement

A. In light of the circumstances in the judgment below, the court below held that, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, the defendant who made it impossible or extremely difficult for the victim B (the victim, the age of 36) to deviate from the defendant's vehicle.

The Court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had proved that he had intention to detain the Defendant.

B. The instant court’s judgment 1-related legal doctrine prevents a person from leaving a specific area with the freedom of human behavior as the protected legal interest.