The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts (with regard to a special confinement) was dissatisfied with the victim, and reported to the police out of the police by the victim, but did not detain the victim.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of confinement is a legal interest that protects human freedom of conduct.

The crime of confinement is a crime which makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to leave a specific district.

Obstructions which make it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to move into a particular area may also be made by psychological and intangible obstacles as well as physical and tangible obstacles.

The essence of detention is to restrict freedom of action, and there is no restriction on the means and method of restricting freedom of action, and it is either tangible or intangible or intangible.

The deprivation of freedom of action in confinement does not necessarily need to be complete (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do5286, Feb. 11, 2000; 2006Do9466, Jul. 13, 2007). 2) In light of the legal principles of the crime of confinement, the following circumstances that can be recognized by evidence duly adopted by the court below and the trial court and the trial court and can be recognized by the evidence of the crime of confinement are acknowledged.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

(1) The injured party consistently committed an assault at an investigative agency after sticking a knife on the knife, threatening, and repeating his knife on the knife.

Before the visit, he continued drinking and prevented out of the house.

When the defendant attempted to flee when the defendant's assault was damaged, the defendant was unable to flee because of the escape.

The phone call from the staff of the service company where the defendant works, and the gap in which the defendant makes a telephone conversation is different.