The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The acquitted part (the driver's assault);

1. On August 31, 2017, around 00:30, the Defendant refused the victim’s demand to pay a fee on the front of the “D” road located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D” (57) in front of the victim E (57) Haystna taxi to be a passenger, took a bath, and assault the victim’s face twice in drinking.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion was committed by assaulting the victim at the time and place indicated in the facts charged. However, since the Defendant was not in operation at the time, the crime of assault is not established under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to the driver’s assault.

3. The crime of assault against a driver in operation under Article 5-10 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is one of the legal interests protected by the law by severely punishing the driver of a motor vehicle with violence, etc. to threaten the safety of the driver, passengers, or pedestrians, etc., and thus establishing traffic order and promoting the safety of citizens. Thus, if it is not anticipated that the above legal interests are violated, such as assault against a driver in the state of alcohol without any intention of continuous operation at a place where there is no risk of undermining public safety and order, the crime cannot be established (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4375, Dec. 11, 2008, etc.). According to the health stand, according to the records of this case, the victim is driving the motor vehicle to a passenger of the motor vehicle before the arrival of the motor vehicle and stopping the motor vehicle before the victim as stated in the facts charged. However, without paying the taxi charges, the victim and the victim will be able to see the victim again.