In addition, there is no fact that the Defendant used glass cups only on the floor, but did not have the victim, and there is no fact that the Defendant collected mass products, and there is no assault against the victim.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim met the following facts: (a) on July 12, 2016, the defendant was an employee of C who uses the same certified broker office as the defendant; and (b) on July 16, 2016, the defendant took part of his belongings with the defendant's dispute with the office; (c) on the 16th of the same month, the defendant did not obtain the consent of the injured party, and (d) on the same day, he asked C whether the injured party took phone to C, and asked C whether he would have called “the defendant called I," and the defendant took part of his personal belongings with the victim who visited the above office for the purpose of causing the damage.

As can be seen, the Defendant’s act of disposing of a book with an unfresh without the victim’s consent while withdrawing from the Defendant constitutes embezzlement, and the act of having the victim with glass cup and Yangsan toward the victim did not directly fit the victim’s body by exercising illegal tangible power against the victim.

Even if it constitutes violence (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6800 decided September 24, 2009). The defendant's ground for appeal is not accepted.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit and thus dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.