The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant was guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.) even though he did not have the intention of assault against the victim, and did not carry a deadly weapon. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment for eight months, the suspension of execution for two years, and the community service order of 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of assaulting a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles means the exercise of physical tangible force against a human body, which does not necessarily require any physical contact with a victim, and thus, in a case where the act of placing a handout or an article, as the victim may take a bath near the victim, was committed, and even if the victim did not directly contact the victim’s body, the act constitutes an assault against the victim as an exercise of unlawful tangible force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1406, Feb. 13, 1990). Whether a certain article constitutes “hazardous object” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act should be determined in light of social norms in a specific case in light of a specific case where: (a) whether the other party or a third party may cause harm to the victim’s life or body; and (b) whether the use of

(대법원 2010. 11. 11. 선고 2010도10256 판결 등 참조). 피고인은 원심에서도 화장실 벽을 향하여 유리컵을 던진 것일 뿐이라고 이 사건 항소이유와 동일한 주장을 하여 원심은 판결문 ‘쟁점에 관한 판단’ 항목에서 피고인이 피해자의 얼굴 쪽 벽으로 유리컵을 던졌고, 위 유리컵이 깨지면서 파편이 피해자의 얼굴로 튄 사실을 인정하고,...