Even if the victim was not injured due to the act of the defendant, it is necessary to punish the above act of the defendant as an assault crime.

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

가. 원심의 판단 원심은, 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 아래와 같은 사정들, ① 당시 식당에서 식사를 하고 있던 목격자 F은 ‘ 피고인이 폭행하는 것은 보지 못하였고 E에게 정신 차려 라고 하면서 손가락 끝으로 E의 뺨 부분을 가볍게 톡톡 친 것은 보았다.

I think it is not a assault.

E seems to have induced assault while she is the arbitr who she becomes the arbitr.

In light of the fact that “A statement made to the purport that E was the recipient of a cell phone after he was investigated by the first police, and that E did not appear in the request of a police officer for a substitution investigation and did not respond to a substitutional investigation with the Defendant, and that E was deemed to have mental illness, such as tide, etc., it is difficult to believe the content of the statement in E made by the assistant judicial police officer to the effect that he suffered bodily injury from the Defendant, as it is, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury upon the victim’s boom.

B. 1) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned fact-finding.