The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and mistake, Defendant’s leaving the entrance door of a toilet for the disabled at two times with a view to the victim does not constitute an exercise of unlawful tangible power against the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (a punishment of KRW 3 million, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of assault in a judgment of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to the exercise of physical tangible force against a human body, which does not necessarily require any contact with the victim, and thus, the victim did not directly contact the victim's body in cases where he/she displayed or laid down his/her hand or goods as he/she might take a bath near the victim.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was located immediately next to the toilet room where the disabled person was in a melting room, and the fact that the defendant set up the entrance entrance of the disabled person at two times and opened the above entrance and displayed the victim with a view to harming the victim. Thus, according to the above legal principle, it is reasonable to view that the above act committed by the defendant in a spatial vicinity with the victim is an exercise of the illegal tangible power against the victim.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is determined by fully taking account of all the circumstances, including the various reasons for sentencing alleged by the Defendant.