The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant did not have committed an act to detain the victim.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) The offense of confinement is an offense that makes it impossible or very difficult for a person to deviate from a specific area by having the freedom of action as a legal interest to protect a person, and its essence is to protect a person’s freedom of action.

As such, there is no restriction on the means and methods of restricting the freedom of action, and an obstacle that makes it impossible or very difficult for a person to deviate from a specific zone can also be caused by psychological and intangible obstacles as well as physical tangible obstacles. As such, the means and methods of the crime of confinement are either tangible or intangible or irrelevant.

In addition, in order to establish a crime of confinement, it is not necessarily necessary to completely deprive a person of his freedom of conduct, and it was allowed to allow a certain freedom of life within a specific area under confinement.

As long as it is impossible or very difficult for a person to deviate from a specific area due to tangible or intangible means or methods, the establishment of the crime of confinement does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of confinement (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1036, May 26, 1998, etc.). In addition, "when two or more persons jointly commit a crime falling under any of the following subparagraphs" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act means that the number of persons jointly commit a so-called co-offender relationship between them. In addition, the case where several persons are aware of another person's crime on the same opportunity at the same place and commit a crime by using it (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000, etc.). The defendant asserted the same as this part of the judgment of the court below.