The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles, misunderstanding the victim B who takes a bath for 70 senior citizens in the subway constitutes a justifiable act to the extent that it does not go against the social norms, and there is no assault by the victim C, such as scambling a child, as the victim C only scambling a mountain, etc.

The judgment of the court below which recognized the crime of assault against victims is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles under the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153, Jan. 29, 191) refers to the exercise of tangible force on a person's body (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153, Jan. 29, 1991). Even if the act of placing a hand or an article in close vicinity to the victim's body does not directly contact the victim's body, the act constitutes an assault as an exercise of unlawful tangible force against the victim (see Supreme Court Decisions 4289Do297, Dec. 12, 1956; 89Do1406, Feb. 13, 190). In addition, the act of assault under the Criminal Act refers to the act of assault that does not violate social rules under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and the act of assaulting or exposing the victim's body should be reasonably justified in light of the overall spirit or social ethics or social norms, and it should be determined as an act that does not violate the legitimate and legitimate purpose.