All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) As to the Defendants’ crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement), Defendant A tried to open the head door of the victim’s cargo to receive the outstanding amount, and the victim was either obstructed or shouldered, and Defendant B also did not have any kind of friendship with the victim at the time. In particular, the victim cannot be deemed to have detained the victim by freely acting in F with the victim’s demand for payment, entering the cell phone with 112 report and phone call at any other place. Nevertheless, the lower court concluded that the Defendants committed a joint confinement under the circumstances stated in Paragraph (1) of the crime in the lower judgment, contrary to this, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the Defendants’ desire to “the victim” once the victim was “the victim” or “the victim”, but the victim did not have any desire to take out money to the police, as it did not appear at the time when the victim did not appear to the victim.

Nevertheless, unlike the above, the court below concluded that the defendants committed an insulting offense under the circumstances as stated in Articles 2 and 3 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of three million won, Defendant B: a fine of one million won) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1 Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts