A. In order to get back the name of the defendant from the injured party, the defendant misunderstanding of the facts only led the injured party to take back the family money in the injured party, and did not have the intention of assault against the defendant.

B. Legal reasoning of the Defendant’s act of entering the facts charged in the instant case does not contravene social norms.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding assertion 1) The assault under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act means a physical force that causes physical pain as an exercise of all tangible force against a human body (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do2234, Jun. 12, 2014). 2) In light of the above legal principles, the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the evidence legitimately adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① even according to the defendant's assertion, the defendant 1 minutes after the victim was able to return her name to the victim, followed the family money in the victim's name, and the victim resisted the victim's name. ② When considering the video recorded in the black box of the defendant's vehicle, etc., the defendant was sufficiently identified as the victim's senior knicker or attached the victim's name to the defendant's knish, etc., at the time of the crime of this case.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. The phrase “act that does not contravene the social norms” as determined by Article 20 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles can be acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it.