The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, was the reason why the victim sent a horn to the victim on the vehicle of the victim, but the victim started to take a photograph of the Defendant with a Handphone without any answer or explanation.

Accordingly, the defendant has been able to make up for two times.

Hand-phones only by side, and there is no fact that they are suitable for the drinking of the victim by cutting the victim's hand or the mobile phone.

The defendant's act does not constitute violence, and the defendant did not have the intention to commit violence.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on assault and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, i.e., when the video taken by the victim using the handphone at the time of the instant case, the Defendant took a bath for the victim and took the handphones of the victim who caused the handphones by hand, even if the victim continued to take the handphones, the victim took the handphones of the victim who caused the handphones, and the handphones off the victim's handphones, and at the same time the victim's handphones off from the victim's handphones, the victim's handphones "h", and the victim took the handphones of the victim at the police investigation, and the victim took the handphones of the victim two times in drinking.

The first is to blick the Handphone, and the second is to write the hand, and the second is to put the handphone into the handphone.

In light of the fact that the defendant made the statement "," it is sufficient that the defendant made twice the victim's hand and cell phone so as to be fit for the victim's entrance, as stated in the facts charged.