The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant, as well as the investigation process of the instant case, consistently denied the fact that the Defendant either directly purchased the victim’s hand or contacted the victim’s hand.

Even if the investigation agency conducted a visual analysis of CCTV taken the situation of the defendant and the victim at the time (the evidence record No. 38, 39 pages), it is only possible to confirm that the damage of the defendant at the time is a mobile phone of the victim, and it is not clearly confirmed whether the defendant prices or gets off the victim's damage, and there is no other evidence that can confirm the defendant's act in addition to the victim's statement.

Nevertheless, the defendant was able to get off the victim's hand once.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts.

In light of the legal principles, even if the Defendant misunderstanding the victim’s Handphones or even if it is recognized that the Defendant took the victim’s handphones as stated in the facts charged of this case, if considering the purpose and intent of the act, the circumstances at the time of the act, the form and type of the act, and the existence and degree of the suffering inflicted on the victim, it cannot be deemed as “an unlawful attack on the body of a person” or “the exercise of an unlawful tangible force against the victim,” which constitutes an assault in the crime of assault.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act constitutes a crime of assault under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the amount of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In fact, according to the field CCTV (DVD) video or investigation report (A Violence CCTV image analysis No. 3) which was reproduced in the appellate court of mistake, it is confirmed that the defendant's mobile phone was removed from the floor of the victim's cell phone because the victim's cell phone was replaced by the victim's hand around 11:57 on January 19, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant's cell phone is used.