1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A regarding additional collection is reversed.

2.3 million won from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor (the charge of special confinement against Defendant A) and, in particular, according to the victim’s consistent statement, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed the crime of special confinement in this case, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the above Defendant (two years of imprisonment and two million won of additional collection) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and additional collection for 2 million won; imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and additional collection for 1 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. As to Defendant A

A. We examine the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts, and the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of special confinement on the ground of the same circumstances as the defendant stated in the 10th 9 to 11th 2 of the judgment. In light of the records, the court below examined the above judgment of the court below in light of the records, the victim B's statement has high probative value to the extent that there is little doubt about its authenticity and accuracy.

It is difficult to see

In light of this part of the facts charged, the decision of the court below that acquitted the public prosecutor of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is a violation of law

It shall not be readily concluded.

B. We examine the determination of the unfair sentencing of the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined the above punishment against the Defendant. The Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant offenses, and the lower court did not only agreed with the victims of each of the instant offenses but also did not have any record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as favorable reasons for sentencing in the trial.