The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant did not assault the victim.

B. Meritorious legal doctrine, even if the Defendant abused the victim.

Even if it does not violate social rules, illegality is excluded.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court consistently asserted that it constitutes the exercise of force as referred to in the crime of assault, and rendered a judgment of conviction against the Defendant on the ground that “It is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s Defendant consistently asserted that he/she was a civilian fact in his/her hands

In light of the circumstances stated by the court below, the court below's aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. Article 20 of the Criminal Act provides that "no act contrary to social rules shall be punished." The concept of social rules is stipulated as the basis for determining the most basic illegality. According to such provision, even if the act appears to fall under the element of crime according to the language and text of the law, its illegality may not be dismissed and punished only when it appears to be within the scope of historical social order created as one of the most common forms of life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do357, Feb. 8, 1983). Even in this case, the victim did not demand the Defendant to pay the cost of selective distribution and the Defendant tried to close the door door.