폭행
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant’s act stated in the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a legitimate act, which is either impossible to be considered as a tangible force prescribed in the crime of assault, or which does not contravene social norms.
However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to assault and legitimate act.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant does not constitute the exercise of force of assault in the instant facts charged even in the lower court.
The argument was asserted.
As to this, the court below held that there was a conflict of opinion between the defendant and the victim regarding the handling of the employee's wage increase in light of the victim's intent, and it is reasonable to view that the forced entry of the victim's clothes into the victim's clothes constitutes an unlawful exercise of force against the victim, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.
B) The term “Assault” in the crime of assault refers to the exercise of physical or mental pain on a human body, and it does not necessarily require any contact with the victim’s body. The illegality should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and intent of the act, the circumstances at the time of the act, the form and type of the act, the existence and degree of pain inflicted on the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9302, Oct. 27, 2016). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant issued a document “the employee wage increase” as stated in the facts charged of this case to the victim, who is a partner, and the victim opposed to the victim’s wage increase without his own name.