The meaning of and criteria for determining “Assault” as referred to in the crime of assault / Whether repeated repeating of a vehicle, as when the victim is faced with one’s street, constitutes “Assault” (affirmative)

Article 260 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 200Do5716 Decided January 10, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 654) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4126 Decided July 24, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6800 Decided September 24, 2009

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Ansan-jin

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2015No230 decided June 2, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The term “Assault” in the crime of assault means an exercise of physical or mental pain on a person’s body, and it does not necessarily require any contact with the victim’s body. The illegality should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and intent of the act, circumstances at the time of the act, mode and type of the act, existence and degree of pain inflicted on the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003; 2008Do4126, Jul. 24, 2008; 2009Do6800, Sept. 24, 2009). Therefore, even if one’s street blocking does not face a victim, repeated act of cutting off the difference, as the victim did, should also be deemed an unlawful use of force against the victim.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s act of driving a vehicle to prevent the victim from driving his vehicle and driving the vehicle again to drive the vehicle again if the victim left behind, which in itself constitutes the exercise of tangible force against the victim, and that the Defendant’s assertion alone does not constitute self-defense or legitimate act.

The lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on assault, intent, legitimate act and self-defense, etc. in the crime of assault.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)