The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's act of misconception of facts is not a crime of assault since he merely threatened with trop and did not directly price the victim, and the defendant did not trop the victim by hand, and therefore his act does not constitute a crime of assault.

B. Although the content of the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is not clear, the following is preferred.

The victim mainly occupied the waiting room of the brue, which is a customer, and the victim was able to easily use the brue.

The crime of this case is merely a defensive act to show the victim.

2. Determination

A. Criminal facts acknowledged by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts are difficult to view that it is inconsistent with the defendant's assertion of this part because the defendant's appearance of the victim was taken by taking the victim's face with the audit plaque and sealed the victim's secret by hand.

Furthermore, violence refers to the exercise of unlawful tangible power against a person's body, and there is no need to have contact with a person.

Therefore, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, the act of flaging the audit plaque, leading the victim's flag, and leading the victim's blag by hand constitutes a crime of assault.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Even if there were grounds as alleged by the Defendant regarding the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of exercising force by the victim was a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms or an act of self-help.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.