All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Considering the fact that the detention by the prosecutor does not necessarily need to entirely deprive human freedom of behavior, and credibility exists in the victim D’s statement, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the crime of bodily injury and the crime of indecent act by compulsion, despite the establishment of the crime of bodily injury by confinement and the crime of indecent act by compulsion among the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and a stay of execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds of the following, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court.

2. According to the records of recognition, the following facts can be acknowledged:

From March 2009, the victim continued to have a relationship between the defendant and his father, counsel, etc. on November 2009, while attending the victim's marriage ceremony together with the defendant, and introduced the defendant to his father, counsel, etc., together with the defendant. From May 2010, the victim sought a room with his house and the money received from the defendant, and was living with the defendant for more than one year.

B. While continuing internal ties with the Defendant, the victim met several times in the inside of the vehicle, etc., as described in each of the items of criminal facts No. 1. 1., and the Defendant was frequently challenged from around 2009 due to the Defendant’s female relationship. For that reason, the Defendant was able to demand a hedging against the Defendant. At each time, the Defendant sought to leave the victim at the hospital, and continued to have the victim met by taking advantage of the victim’s wrongness, and the victim has continued to have re-explosive relations.

C. On September 2012, the Defendant: (a) did not see the Victim and did not communicate with the Defendant; and (b) let the Victim E communicate with the Victim around October 2012.