beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant committed a mistake of facts as to the confinement of the victim D, but the Defendant divided the conversation with the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 1807 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) that he used as the office, and asked the victim to stay in the apartment of this case only by requesting that he stay in the apartment of this case, while the victim did not have any locked place, but only by requesting that he stay in the apartment of this case. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the detention by mistake of facts.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The offense of confinement is a crime that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to leave a specific area with the freedom of action as the protected legal interest of the person’s legal interest, and thus, makes it impossible or extremely difficult for the person to move into a specific area, not only physical and tangible obstacles but also psychological and intangible obstacles, and the essence of confinement is not limited to the means and methods of restricting the freedom of action by restricting the freedom of action. Thus, the means and methods are either tangible or intangible or intangible, and it does not necessarily need to be completely deprived of the freedom of action in the confined area. Thus, even if a certain freedom of action is permitted within the confined area, it does not interfere with the establishment of the offense of confinement.
Therefore, the crime of confinement is committed even in cases where the victim cannot escape from the blank sense that he/she is aware that he/she might suffer serious harm to his/her life and body if the victim abscondss as a means of intimidation.
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do102 Decided March 24, 200, Supreme Court Decision 91Do1604 Decided August 27, 1991, etc.). However, the Defendant is the victim.