The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the misunderstanding of the facts or the misapprehension of the legal doctrine that the victims were voluntarily committed to Tcomher with Tcomher and Venecar offices and had been guaranteed freedom of action in a free atmosphere, the victims were detained in a specific area.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the defendant had a criminal intent for confinement.

B. The sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the sentencing unfair is too unreasonable. (The penalty amounting to KRW 4,00,000)

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of confinement is a crime which makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to leave a specific area with the freedom of action as a legal interest protected by the law, and thus, makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to move into a specific area, 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. Thus, the means and methods are either tangible or intangible or intangible, and it does not necessarily need to be completely deprived of the freedom of action in the detention, and thus, a certain freedom of life is allowed within a specific area under confinement.

Even if there is no complaint on the establishment of the crime of confinement (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do102 delivered on March 24, 2000, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the victim's escape from the defendant, who is the manager of the Mazin shop operated by the court below.

If the escape is reported to the immigration control office, it was known that the victims were threatened with the victim's request.

E.