A. The Defendant is guilty of assaulting the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts, even though the plastic bag was in the presence of the victim, in the guidance room for the victim B (hereinafter “victim”) who is a pro-born victim, and in the process, the document envelope was in the vicinity of the victim’s face twice. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of assaulting the victim.

B. The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a very minor act committed in the course of compelling the victim’s fluorous speech and behavior to fluority. This constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be found to have abused the victim's face twice in light of documents bags cited by the court below as stated in the facts of the crime. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The "act which does not violate the social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms and thus, should be determined individually by considering the specific circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the defendant and the victim had been fired for several years, but at the time, the court was proceeding in this court with respect to the judgment of the first instance of a civil lawsuit brought by the injured party against the defendant, and the crime of this case was committed in the appellate court.