The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of mistake of facts, although there was a fact that the defendant was saw, the victim C did not have any fact corresponding to the misunderstanding of facts, and thus, the victim C did not commit the assault.

With respect to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoking), the Defendant did not have sold or sold mert cancer to L.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The crime of assault in relation to a special assault refers to the exercise of physical tangible force against a person, and therefore it does not necessarily require any contact with the victim, and thus, in the event that the act of putting a hand or an object, as the victim may take a bath near the victim, or the act of putting a hand or an object or throwing it out is an exercise of unlawful tangible force against the victim, even though it did not directly contact the victim's body, it constitutes an assault.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4126, Jul. 24, 2008). According to the records, the Defendant, who did not open the door of the second floor office, takes care of the victim out of the building of the first floor while taking care of the body of the second floor. The fact that the Defendant, while taking care of the body of the second floor office, was able to collect a studio gate from the building of the second floor. The fact that the Defendant got the victim of the second floor office building of the second floor office is recognized at least.

Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed assault against the victim by the brick gate, which is a dangerous object regardless of whether the victim was in ductible or not.

The judgment of the court below that applied this part of the facts charged as a special assault is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as the grounds for appeal.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (e.g., the contents of the first instance judgment and the first instance judgment in accordance with the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle.