The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.), among the cases of misunderstanding facts, the Defendant first committed a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (collectively, Deadly, etc.). However, the Defendant did not possess an electronic percussion lock at first, but did not have any fact that the Defendant had a knife in possession of the victim, and later, he was able to leave the knife with the victim at any time in a free atmosphere, and the victim could leave the knife easily from the Defendant at any time. In relation to the case of 2013 Go-Ma3175, the above crime is not established. In relation to the case of 2013 Go-Ma3175, March 111, 2013, the Defendant found the victim’s house with the victim’s house for a long time and found the victim’s house together with the victim’s house until March 17, 2013, and found the Defendant guilty that affected the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The offense of confinement on the assertion of mistake 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. As such, not only physical and intangible but also psychological and intangible obstacles that make it impossible or extremely difficult for the person to move into a specific area, and the essence of confinement is not limited to the means and methods that restrict the freedom of action by restricting the freedom of action. Thus, the means and methods are either tangible or intangible, or are not prohibited, and the deprivation of the freedom of action in confinement must be a full-scale deprivation.