The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (the point of special violence and the point of damage to property) is that the Defendant landed from the floor and caused by that, only one bridge of a wooden winner, and there was no fact that the tree donor had been faced with the set of TV, and there was no intention that the tree victim had been faced with the victim, etc., and there was no fact that the TV was damaged due to the flusing of TV.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts as to the special violence, the term of assault in the relevant legal doctrine refers to the exercise of physical force against the body of a person. It does not necessarily require any physical contact with the body of the victim. As the victim might take a bath near the victim, even if the victim did not directly contact the body of the victim, it constitutes an assault as an exercise of unlawful tangible power against the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1406, Feb. 13, 1990) and the victim and the police officers visiting the scene of this case stated as follows at the investigative agency or this court. (1) The victim stated in this court that the defendant was gathering the victim, while the victim stated that there was no person who was a tree, the victim was aware of the fact that the victim was a tree victim, and (2) the victim stated that he was aware that he was aware of the victim's identity as follows.

(3) The defendant only gets off the floor by entering the chair, but less than the witness.