The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal and misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant did not have the intention of assault because he did not display his fluorial force to fluorize the body of the victim's head due to the fluorial force of the two flusent force.

Even if the elements of the crime of assault are recognized, in light of the circumstances of this case, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, but the court below's decision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle.

The punishment (1.5 million won) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts is rejected, since it is recognized that the Defendant committed an assault by using the force that was boomed by the intent of assault.

In relation to a crime of interference with the performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act, assault refers to an act of exercising a tangible force against a public official who performs official duties, and the assault includes the act of directly or indirectly going to a public official (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do326, Mar. 24, 1981, etc.). The victim, around November 21, 2016, consulted the victim about the supply and demand of basic living at the 4th floor welfare support office and office of the D's separate office located in Seoul E, and at the time of counseling on the victim's daily life. The victim, at around November 21, 2016, she was blicked with the right-hand calendar force of the Defendant’s 2 unfolded by the Defendant’s own hand, and at the same time, she was called as the one that was a large part of his body.

The statement was made (Evidence No. 16, 17 pages). The public official F working in the office such as the victim was expressed in a way that the victim's face was faced with the calendar force of the defendant's remaining mind.

The statement was made (Evidence No. 12 of the evidence record), the public official J, and K directly assaults the victim.