beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,00, and by a fine of KRW 1,00,000, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that: (a) the Defendants had been staying in the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Office 231 Office (hereinafter “instant office”); (b) E attempted to leave the instant office only once; and (c) before the Defendants discovered the Defendants, F was together with E in the instant office; and (d) the Defendants did not request EF and G to help or notify the police; (b) even if the Defendants did not request E to help or inform the police, the Defendants were unable to deviate from the instant office; or (c) on the ground that it was not evaluated that there was a danger to life or body.
However, according to the E and F’s investigative agencies and the lower court’s legal statements, the Defendants were found to have detained E as described in the facts charged, and ② the lower court held that the Defendants, as it is absolutely impossible to deviate from the office of the instant case, or that detention was established following the danger to life or body. However, this is not consistent with the elements of the crime of confinement in light of the language and text of the crime of confinement, and it is unreasonable to excessively reduce the scope of the establishment of the crime without any reasonable ground (the Defendants mobilized physical power and force, thereby practically restricting the victim’s physical freedom inside the office of this case). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged.
B. As to the part on the damage of property among the facts charged in the instant case (Defendant B), the lower court held that ① the statement between E and H on the Defendant’s act of causing property damage does not coincide, and ② the Defendant’s act of causing property damage is owned by E.