The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and B Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, Defendant C for one year, and Defendant D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A and C’s statements in the special robbery of Defendant A and C are contradictory and not reliable, and Defendant A and C consistently denied the special robbery. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant A and C guilty of the special robbery against the above Defendants is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B) Defendant D’s special confinement of Defendant D did not have any intention to place the victimized person on the vehicle, and 20 minutes passed after the injured person gets on board the vehicle. Since Defendant D promised B and the injured person to go on to the police station, the relationship with the person would be terminated as to the special confinement that occurred thereafter.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of special confinement is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (three years of imprisonment; two years of imprisonment; confiscation; two years and six years and six months and one year and one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) are too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the special robbery on the ground that Defendant B, A, and C knew of the fact that he took money from the victim, and thus, Defendant B, A, and C was not guilty. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against Defendant B and D is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant D not guilty on the part of the judgment that the said Defendant detained the victim by carrying dangerous articles, on the ground that the Defendant D was convicted of a special crime of confinement on the ground that he was detained by organization or multiple force. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the part that the said Defendant was detained by carrying dangerous articles.

The above defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the guilty part, but the prosecutor did not file an appeal against the acquittal part.

Therefore, it is true.