The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have any locked relation to the Defendant’s visit.

It is true that the defendant was absent from his visit.

However, since the visiting knife is a knife device, the victim could move out of without any impediment, and its purpose was not to keep the victim, but to prevent the mother of the defendant from entering into the room.

The judgment below

There is an error of law by mistake in finding a guilty of heavy confinement.

B. In light of the fact that the criminal defendant was in a profound radius and that the special injury crime was committed by a drunkly, the sentence sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The determination on the assertion of mistake of facts is a crime that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to move into a specific area with the freedom of action as a legal interest protected by the protection of the person’s legal interest. As such, not only physical and tangible obstacles but also psychological and intangible obstacles, 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. It does not necessarily require a complete deprivation of the freedom of action in confinement (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do945, Apr. 25, 2003; 2010Do4864, Jun. 24, 2010).

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim is an investigative agency.