The sentence against the accused shall be determined by one year and six months of imprisonment.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for a period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

At around 22:30 on January 11, 2017, the Defendant: (a) provided the victim E (or 38 years of age) with a word “sing voice,” and proposed that the Defendant would drink with the victim more defective and defective; and (b) provided the victim with the Defendant’s drinking to the said singing room at around 23:45 on the same day, the Defendant was accommodated with “F” 305 on the same day.

Defendant 20,000 won in cash to the victim within the above Moel room

Although the victim suggested that sexual intercourse was defective, the victim could not leave the victim's head and arms when refusing sexual traffic, and prevented the victim from leaving the room. The G to find out the victim's contact with the victim and move about the victim. However, the victim's head and arms could not get out of the telecom because he/she had a view to locking the telecom visit, towing the victim's head and head and booming the victim's head and booming the victim's head, putting the victim's head and booming the victim's head and booming the victim's head, frighting the victim's head and telephone, etc. at the victim's body, and preventing the victim from leaving the victim from leaving the telecom.

As a result, the Defendant detained the victim for about 15 minutes from January 11, 2017 to 00:00 on the following day, and thereby, suffered bodily injury, such as salt, tension, etc. in which the treatment period cannot be known to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to E, H, G, and I;

1. Reports on internal investigation (in the case of the site conditions, the attachment of photographs), respective photographs, investigation reports (in the case of the site conditions, attachment of site photographs, photographs of victims), and respective photographs;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that he did not unilaterally assault the victim while drinking with the victim.

However, this case’s statements made by the above telecom employee H, and the victim’s contact with the victim.