The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who misleads the victim of the fact, is merely aware of his/her hands toward the victim. Since the Defendant’s hand does not directly contact the victim’s face, the Defendant did not assault the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the defendant's face at one time, and even if the defendant did not directly contact the victim's body, it may constitute violence as an exercise of unlawful tangible force against the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003, etc.). Thus, even if the defendant's hand over and did not directly contact the victim's face, even if the defendant's hand over and did not directly contact the victim's face, it does not interfere with the defendant's act as a crime of assault.

The defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the fact that the defendant at least had an attitude against the defendant, i.e., misunderstanding the part of his/her hand toward the victim, appears to be favorable to the defendant.

However, on the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant on the ground that the defendant was only in a chemical situation, and there is no reason to believe that the crime of this case was committed by assaulting the victim, and there was no agreement with the victim or any measure to recover damage.

Many of the defendants have criminal records of violence, and the crimes of this case are also crimes during the suspension of execution and are likely to be criticized.

Considering the above circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the defendant, and the age, sex, environment, and all other conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too vague.