The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Violence refers to the exercise of physical and mental pain to a person's body, and it does not necessarily require any contact to the body of the victim. The illegality should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and intent of the act, circumstances at the time of the act, form and type of the act, existence and degree of pain inflicted on the victim, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003; 2008Do4126, Jul. 24, 2008; 2009Do6800, Sept. 24, 2009). Therefore, even if the victim’s blocking his/her own vehicle does not face with one another, the repeated act of making the victim early boom the vehicle as against the victim is also deemed to have exercised an unlawful tangible power against the victim.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s act of driving a vehicle to prevent the victim from driving his vehicle and driving the vehicle again to drive the vehicle again if the victim left behind, which in itself constitutes the exercise of tangible force against the victim, and that the Defendant’s assertion alone does not constitute self-defense or legitimate act.

The lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on assault, intent, legitimate act and self-defense, etc. in the crime of assault.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.