The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not jointly commit an assault against the victim, or conspired with A, in collaboration with the co-defendant A of the lower judgment.

In addition, the defendant's act is to prevent the victim from interfering with the operation of air conditioners in commercial buildings, and it is a legitimate act that does not go against the social norms.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of assaulting the victim jointly with A, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the act of a political party, etc., thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that "When two or more persons jointly commit a crime of injury or assault" requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them. In addition, several persons are aware of another person's crime in the same opportunity at the same place and commit a crime by using it (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153, Jan. 29, 1991). In the joint principal offender committing a crime through a joint processing by two or more persons, the conspiracy or conspiracy does not necessarily need to be made directly and explicitly, and it may be made objectively and implicitly, but in any case, there is a combination of intent to jointly realize it through a joint processing of a crime, and where the defendant denies a criminal intent together with the conspiracy, such subjective element is to be proved by indirect facts or circumstantial facts that have a considerable relation with an object in light of the nature of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153, Jan. 29, 1991).