The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not have any direct exercise of tangible power against the victim, and there was no intent to exercise a tangible force against the victim. Even if the defendant's assaulted against the victim, the defendant's act constitutes legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act or self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On June 26, 2018, around 09:30 on May 26, 2018, the Defendant assaulted the victim B(47 years of age) from the “C Terminal” located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-si, that the Defendant’s selective distribution does not lead to the Defendant’s mind. However, the Defendant assaulted the victim, such as the victim’s selective distribution boxes 2 to 3 times.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

C. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant has exercised the tangible power, such as making three times a door-to-door stuff, which the victim cited as stated in the facts charged.

However, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., (i) the Defendant as a door-to-door terminal manager of H affiliated with H, was engaged in selective distribution at the instant terminal as indicated in the facts charged, but the above terminal was not a place where the victim was engaged in ordinary work, but it appears that at the time of the instant case, the victim was interfering with the work to prevent the work from working in a smooth manner by getting off the given terminal to the employees, and (ii) the Defendant citing the victim’s home compensation for damages at the first time.