The defendant said that he was able to be able to say that he was able to be able to easily and easily with the victim, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute violence, and there is no intention to commit violence against the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of assault is erroneous.

2. The judgment below held that the crime of assault referred to in the crime of assault refers to the exercise of physical or mental pain to a person's body, and 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, form and type of the act, existence and degree of pain inflicted on the victim, etc.

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9302 Decided October 27, 2016) based on the legal principle, the Defendant filed a complaint against the victim in fraud, completed an examination at an investigative agency, and mash in the elevator after the completion of the examination. The Defendant took his face near the face of the victim; the Defendant took his face back to the face of the victim with the face of the victim as a document envelope; and the Defendant took care of the document envelope by hand (in the process, the document envelope faces face of the victim) and took the victim’s face, and then took care of these facts in light of the legal principle as seen above, the Defendant was found to constitute an unlawful exercise of the victim’s face in light of the purpose of the act and the circumstance at the time of the act, and thus, the act constitutes an intentional use of the document envelope.

l.p. g., p.