A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not have any criminal intent to assault the victim I, and the Defendant’s act of talking the victim with a large voice cannot be deemed as an exercise of tangible power required in the crime of assault, and even if so, it is so.

Even if the defendant's above act constitutes a legitimate act, it is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of assault against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2) As to the insult, the Defendant had no criminal intent to insult the victim, and the subject of insult was specified at the time of the instant case.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be seen as falling under the offense of insult, since there was no performance in the defendant's act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of insult is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts: (a) Whether the act of the defendant constitutes a assault, and whether the defendant has a criminal intent to commit an assault (1) Whether the crime of assault under Article 260 of the Criminal Act refers to the exercise of tangible force to human body; and (b) the exercise of such tangible force refers to the physical power that causes physical pain; and (c) the sound that directly stimulates the hearing institution of the body can be included in the tangible force depending on the case of sound that directly stimulates the hearing institution.

Therefore, the act of using violent language, taking a bath, or simultaneously exposing or taking a hand or an object in the vicinity of the victim's body may constitute violence as an exercise of unlawful tangible force against the victim even though the victim did not directly contact the victim's body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003). (2)