A. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case in the absence of physical contact with the victim in the course of a verbal dispute with the victim, but there was no intentional assault with the victim's body force, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The term “Assault” in the crime of assaulting a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles means the exercise of physical or mental pain to a human body. It does not necessarily require any contact to a victim’s body. The illegality should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and intent of the act, circumstances at the time of the act, mode and type of the act, existence and degree of pain inflicted on the victim, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9302, Oct. 27, 2016). Evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court. In particular, according to CCTV video data taken on the site at the time of the instant case, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, since the Defendant was merely deemed to have actively exercised a tangible force toward the victim’s intentional use of force, i.e., assaulting the victim’s shoulder while engaging in a dispute with the victim, pushed down the victim’s shoulder, pushed down the victim’s body behind the body, and pushed down the victim’s body, and faced the victim’s body with the victim’s body.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015