Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

B. The crime of assaulting and determining a party’s deliberation refers to the exercise of physical or mental pain to a person’s body. It does not necessarily require any contact to the 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9302, Oct. 27, 2016). Relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the following circumstances recognized by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant was sealed by the investigative agency as a hand, “in the inside the train.”

The lower court stated that “the victim was able to take care of the public,” and the lower court’s court stated that “the victim was sworn.”

“Written statement,” and in the case of the party, only the victim was pushed by hand.

In light of the fact that the victim made a statement and recognized the exercise of tangible force against the victim, ② the victim consistently makes statements that correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, ③ the Defendant appears to have done the exercise of tangible force against the victim under the interest of the victim, due to the problem of parking time during the course of invasion, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the Defendant’s assertion.