The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles

A. Although it is acknowledged that the Defendant had intention to detain the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant on the relevant facts charged.

B. In a case where there are no new objective grounds that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and there are no reasonable grounds to deem that the determination of a documentary evidence for the first instance was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the judgment on the recognition of facts in the first instance deliberation shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The lower court is not guilty.

3. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, based on the detailed circumstances in the item of “judgment”, was proven beyond reasonable doubt that there was an intent to detain the victim as stated in the pertinent facts charged.

It is difficult to see

Based on the judgment, this part of the facts charged was acquitted.

In this part of the judgment of the court below, there is no reasonable ground to deem that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of evidences during the hearing process of this court.

The judgment of the court below contains an error in the misapprehension of legal principles alleged by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

We do not accept the prosecutor's assertion.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below on the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of sentencing, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). This court is newly established.