The attitude of committing the crime of confinement;

The crime of confinement is a crime that restricts the freedom of physical activities by making it impossible or considerably difficult for people to leave a certain area, and is established when physical freedom is restricted against their will by means of the exercise of tangible and intangible coercive force, deception, etc.

Article 276 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul District Court (83 High Court Decision 9080)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

The gist of the defendants' appeal is as follows: First, the defendants were found to have committed each crime against the victim's will; second, even if the defendants were to have committed confinement against the victim's will, the court below found the defendants guilty of the facts that they did not violate social rules because they were to exercise their rights; the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles of the acts of the parties, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the court below decided that the victims were 00,000 won of the land owned by the defendant 1 and 1605 square meters of the land owned by the non-indicted 1 and 200,000 won of the defendant's land owned by the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted 2's office (the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2's land owned by the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1500,000 won of the land owned by the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2's land owned by the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2's land.

However, the crime of confinement is a crime that restricts the freedom of physical activities by making it impossible or considerably difficult for the people to leave a certain area, and it is established when the physical freedom is restricted against their will by means of the exercise of tangible and intangible coercive force or the means of deception. As to the facts charged in paragraph (1) above, the Defendants consistently denied the facts charged up to the trial court and the trial court after the remand and the remand, and the Defendants’ refusal to issue a written confirmation of purchase and sale of farmland to Nonindicted 3, which is the above clan, and the escape of the first instance trial co-defendant who is the original seller, made it difficult for the defendants to solve this problem, and there is no evidence that there is no other reason to support the above facts charged by the Defendants from the prosecutor's office or from the prosecutor's office in the first instance trial on September 25, 1983.

However, at the direct examination at the investigative agency and the court below, Nonindicted Party 1 stated that the Defendants were under surveillance at the Seoul Office (name omitted) and the Defendant was under verbal abuse, and that the cross-examination by the defense counsel was not forced to take place at the Seoul Office, and that there was no verbal abuse, and that Defendant 1 again asked the witness at the court court prior to remand that he did not have a resident registration certificate, and asked the witness at the office of the Defendants that he would not have a "self-feasible and proof", thereby making it difficult to view that the head 1 was under the name of the Defendant's face 5,6 times at the front shock and that it was difficult to view that the Defendants were under the name of the court below, and that the Defendants were under the name of Nonindicted Party 1 and the prosecutor's statement that the Defendants were under the influence of Nonindicted Party 1 and the prosecutor's statement that they were under the name of the defendant 1 without any reason to believe that they were under the name of the defendant 1 and that they were under the name of the defendant 1.

공소외 1은 수사기관 및 원심과 환송전 당심법정에서 강릉 (명칭 생략)호텔에서 피고인 1로부터 목을 발로 밟히는 등 폭행을 당하였고 위 피고인이 여관주변에 경찰관을 배치시켜 놓았으니 도망갈 생각을 하지 말라는 말에 두려워서 위 여관에 꼼짝없이 갇혀있었다고 진술하고 있으나 한편 일건 기록에 의하면 동인은 피고인 1을 강릉경찰서에 고소한 사건에 관하여 동 피고인과 같이 조사를 받고 나서 담당수사관으로부터 서로 원만히 합의하라는 종용을 받은 끝에 동 피고인을 위해 신원보증인이 되어 주어 같이 경찰서를 나왔고 동 피고인이 서울의 피고인 2에게 즉시 강릉으로 내려오라는 전화연락을 취함에 있어 그가 평소 잘 알고 지내는 약국에 들러 시외전화를 하도록 편의를 보아 주었으며 이후 피고인 1이 (명칭 생략)호텔을 나와 강릉시내에 나가 혼자 저녁을 먹고 다방에 들려 텔레비젼을 보다가 돌아오기까지 2시간 동안 혼자서 호텔방에 머물러 있었던 점을 스스로 시인하고 있음을 알 수 있는바, 이와 같이 공소외 1이 피고인 1과 함께 위 강릉 (명칭 생략)호텔에 가게 된 전후 사정에 비추어 볼 때 피고인 1의 협박과 구타로 인하여 호텔방에 갇혀 나오지 못하였다는 공소외 1의 진술 역시 전후 모순되고 상식에 반하여 선뜻 믿기 어렵다 할 것이다.

Therefore, although there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case except for the statements made in the investigation agency of Nonindicted Party 1 and in the court of original instance that are difficult to believe due to lack of consistency and credibility, the court below erred by finding the Defendants guilty and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment by comprehensively taking account of the evidence that did not directly prove the facts charged. Thus, the judgment of the court below is improper and the defendants' appeal is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts charged in this case

(1) The defendants paid 54 million won to the victim non-indicted 1 for purchase of 4 parcels of land in the Gangnamest clan from 54 million won, 1605 square meters to 96.3 million won for the victim's land owned by the defendant, and 1,150 won for the victim's land owned by the above victim, but the co-defendant of the first instance court, who was the original seller of the above clan land around September 25, 1983, could not receive the ownership transfer of 4 parcels of the above clan land because he escaped from the above defendant's office around September 26, 198, in collaboration with the non-indicted 2, 200 on September 26, 200 in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 199 to the non-indicted 1, who was accompanied by the defendant 1, to compensate for the damages caused by the defendant's purchase of land from the non-indicted 1, who was ordered to take out the above office's name of the victim's 27000 hours after being taken off the above office.

(2) When the above victim was investigated by filing a complaint with the Gangnam Police Station as to the above facts, around 22:00 on May 10 of the same year, Defendant 1 must take the victim who was met at the above police station to the (title omitted) hotel No. 4-1 located in Gangseo-si, Yung-si, 4-1 located in the above police station to solve the problem of compensation because the victim was inside the city where the victim was inside the city where the victim was injured, and it is necessary to solve the problem of compensation because he did not observe the entrance and exit, and the above facts charged were detained for 7 hours from the next day until 05:00. As stated in the above reasons for reversal, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act that each of the defendants was acquitted.

Judges Anal-Sagle (Presiding Judge) Practice