The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (1) The Defendant’s act was a legitimate act that can be permitted by social norms to guide the victim, since the Defendant’s act does not constitute a “dibage”, and the Defendant’s act was not a legitimate act that could be permitted by social norms to guide the victim, when he leads the victim to school.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding the Defendant guilty without considering these circumstances.

2. Determination

A. The term "Assault" in the crime of assault under Article 260 of the Criminal Act, which is a judgment on the point of appeal, refers to the exercise of tangible force against a person's body, and the exercise of such tangible force refers to all physical force causing physical pain (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003). Since it does not necessarily require contact to the body of the victim, it does not necessarily require contact to the victim, and therefore, it constitutes an assault as an exercise of unlawful tangible force against the victim even in a case where a person is not in contact with the victim, such as a case where a person was brutddd or dumd or dumddd ordumdddddddd

(See Supreme Court Decision 89Do1406 delivered on February 13, 1990, etc.). According to the above legal principles, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant had flabbb around the defendant's operation and led about about 50 meters to the Dmiddle School principal room against the victim's will. Thus, it is proper that the court below recognized this part of the act as a crime of assault. Even if the defendant's defendant's "outstanding and leading to the victim's "outstanding," as alleged by the defendant, it does not interfere with the recognition of the crime of assault unless it goes against the victim's will.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.