The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the sense of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant merely caused the victim’s left shoulder on three occasions with the floor of hand in the sense of pointing out the fluorous speech and behavior of the victim during the conversation with the victim, and the above act by the Defendant cannot be deemed as an exercise of tangible power that causes pain to the other party, and thus, it does not constitute “Assault” under the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant charges on the ground that the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is reliable in light of the existence and consistency of the victim’s statement, and even if the Defendant was somewhat weak in the motive to mislead the victim, it constitutes the exercise of force against the victim’s intent.

2) The term “Assault” in the crime of assault refers to the exercise of physical or mental pain to a person’s body. The illegality ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the purpose and intent of the act, circumstances at the time of the act, form and type of the act, existence and degree of pain inflicted on the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9302, Oct. 27, 2016). 3) The circumstances revealed by the lower court’s ruling and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and the following circumstances revealed by the lower court, are difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s act was merely a minor contact, and it does not reach the degree of assault under the Criminal Act, and it is evident that the Defendant’s act constitutes assault under the Criminal Act as an exercise of unlawful tangible force against the victim’s body.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just.