The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the request of E, was driving only E/I by misunderstanding facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, and did not arrest the victim together with E, etc., and did not inflict an injury on the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended sentence) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment by changing the criminal facts against the defendant into "special injury" and "Article 258-2 (1) and Articles 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" and "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" and changed the subject of the judgment. The criminal facts in this part and the remaining criminal facts against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the entire judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

(2) However, even if there was such an ex officio fault, the assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles still is subject to the judgment of the court, so this is examined.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court may recognize the fact that the Defendant conspiredd with accomplices, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, and detained the victims and inflicted injury

① The J appeared as a witness in a criminal trial against E, an accomplice (Seoul District Court Decision 2011 High Court Order 4818, hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) and asked the Defendant to return his/her passport at the time of kidnapping the victim, but the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s application.

While the victim was detained by the victim, the defendant continued to go well to G.