The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not commit assault against the victim since he merely saw that he was in the public to speak against the victim B in the date and place stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and that he did not tried to see the victim who was 3 to 4 meters away from the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, who was charged with the instant facts charged, did not have to be in harmony with the victim B (the age of 51) who was the former employer, due to the business problem. As a matter of reflecting on himself as an extension, the Defendant had been in mind at ordinary people.

On May 31, 2014, at around 22:05, the Defendant 22:05: (a) sent phone calls prior to several hours; and (b) sent the victim, who was able to go to the said box at the end of giving and taking other bathings; (c) took a serious bath for the victim among police officers E, etc.; and (d) took a plenary game toward the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim.

3. Determination

A. The crime of assault under Article 260 of the Criminal Act refers to the exercise of physical tangible force against a human body, and thus, it does not necessarily require any physical contact with a victim. Thus, as the victim does not have any contact with a human body, in the case of an act to display or throw away a hand or an object, even if the victim did not directly contact the body of the victim, it can be deemed an unlawful use of force against the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1406, Feb. 13, 1990). However, this should be deemed to be an unlawful attack against a human body.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Do1796 delivered on October 14, 1986, etc.). B.

Based on the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.