The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In regard to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, there was no intention for the free-paid car because the defendant had the intent and ability to pay the taxi fee.

② As to the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant was only in the position of the victim in the sense that he was forced to set off his bank by cutting off his bank, and as such, the act of cutting off his bank string cannot be evaluated as a assault, and the victim is likely to have come up with his bank without force, and there is a possibility that the victim would have come up with his bank without force, and there was no intention of assault to escape from the unfair arrest of the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (the fine of KRW 700,00 and the cost of lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below is based on the facts acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. In other words, the victim, without paying the taxi fee, has set a string away by the defendant, and the victim demanded to pay the taxi fee, and the defendant has not expressed an intent to pay the taxi fee more than two minutes in the refusal of the payment. In full view of the fact that the defendant did not have an intent to pay the taxi fee, the fact that the defendant had cash or card sufficient to pay the taxi fee, does not affect the conclusion that the defendant had an intention to pay the taxi fee. 2) Violence in the crime of assault in the part of paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment of the court below means the exercise of physical tangible power against a human body, and it does not necessarily require any contact with the body of the victim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 89Do1406 delivered on February 13, 1990, see Supreme Court Decision 89Do1406, Feb. 13, 199).