All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B merely told Defendant A that he was only the victim and did not assault the victim. 2) Defendant A did not have the intent of assault, and the Defendant’s act cannot be viewed as assault.

B. Legal principles (Defendant A) Defendant A’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against social norms.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant B: a fine of two million won, Defendant A: a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Defendant B’s argument regarding Defendant B’s assertion is merely the expression of Defendant A and the victim’s vision. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant B’s assertion is acknowledged as the fact that Defendant B committed an assault by setting the victim’s timber and the spons, and that Defendant B did not exercise any tangible force against Defendant A at the time of assaulting the victim (the 13th, 14, 23, 35, 46 of investigation records). In full view of these circumstances, Defendant B’s act can be deemed as a unilateral assault, and cannot be deemed as a passive act to sponse time, and thus, the above argument by the Defendant is rejected.

B. Determination 1 on Defendant A’s assertion refers to the exercise of physical force against a person’s body. The exercise of force refers to physical force that causes physical pain (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003). However, since it does not necessarily require contact to the victim’s body, it does not necessarily require contact with the victim. As such, in the event of an act of displaying or taking a hand or an object, even if it did not directly contact the victim’s body, it is an exercise of unlawful tangible force against the victim.