The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant did not directly exercise the force against the victims, the crime of assault is not established.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts 1) As to the crime of assault against the victim E, the term "Assault" refers to the exercise of physical tangible force against the body of a person, and it does not necessarily require any physical contact with the body of the victim. Thus, in the case of an act of displaying a hand or an object, as the victim might take a bath near the victim, it was not directly contacted with the victim's body.

Even if an unlawful force against the victim constitutes an assault (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do1406, Feb. 13, 1990). In light of the above legal principle, health stand in the instant case and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the circumstances acknowledged by the court below, namely, ① the victim E used a notice board prohibiting parking at the time of the instant case and served as the victim E was displayed.

The statement (in the investigation record 47 pages) and 2, the original witness F made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was sworn to the D store at the time of the instant case with the victim E at a distance of not more than 1m, and tried to have a witness and satisfed to satisfing that the Defendant was satisfing, and satisfing the victim’s sound as follows.” This is consistent with the victim E’s statement. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s act conforms to the victim E’s statement, it can be recognized that the Defendant committed an assault as satfing to the victim E at the time of the instant case, and even if the Defendant’s act does not directly exercise the satisfe of the victim’s body, the Defendant’s act was adjacent to the victim, and thus, was unlawful.