Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Overturning a table as unlawful force against a person's body
Supreme Court, Apr. 2, 2026, 2023Do5440 (judgment)
Case name: 폭행[책상을 뒤엎은 것이 폭행인지가 문제 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a defendant, during an argument, suddenly overturned a desk in his own forward direction and a fragment happened to strike the victim standing nearby, does that act constitute the unlawful force against the victim's body required for assault under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, without any contact with the victim's body?
Holding
Assault means the exercise of unlawful physical force against a person's body, and contact with the victim's body is not always required. Because the offence protects the integrity of the body and not a person's sense of unease, whether force amounting to assault occurred without contact must be decided carefully, weighing the act's orientation toward a body and its degree, the unlawfulness and directness it posed to the victim's body, the spatial closeness of actor and victim, the direct purpose and intention, the manner and kind of the act, the means and method, the surrounding circumstances, and the pain caused to the victim's body. On these facts the table was overturned in the defendant's forward direction, blocked by another desk, while the victim stood at about ten o'clock, so no risk to the victim's body appeared and the intention to exercise force against the body could not be concluded; the fact that fragments happened to strike the victim was not enough to establish the offence or its intent.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
피해자의 신체에 접촉하지 않은 사안에서 사람에 대한 유형력의 행사가 폭행에 해당하는지를 판단할 때에는 폭행죄의 보호법익이 ‘신체’의 완전성이라는 점을 충분히 고려하면서, 해당 행위의 신체지향성 유무와 정도, 그로 인한 피해자의 신체에 대한 위법성의 정도 및 직접성, 행위자와 피해자의 공간적 근접성, 행위의 직접적인 목적과 의도, 행위의 태양과 종류, 수단과 방법, 행위 당시의 정황, 피해자의 신체에 가하는 고통의 유무와 정도 등을 아울러 참작하여 신중하게 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
When determining whether the exercise of physical force against a person constitutes assault in a case where there was no physical contact with the victim's body, the determination must be carefully made, taking sufficient account of the fact that the protected legal interest of the crime of assault is the integrity of the 'body,' and giving due consideration, in combination, to whether and to what extent the act in question is directed toward the body, the degree of unlawfulness and the directness of the resulting infringement upon the victim's body, the spatial proximity between the actor and the victim, the direct purpose and intent of the act, the manner and type of the act, the means and method, the circumstances at the time of the act, and whether and to what extent pain was inflicted upon the victim's body.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
피해자의 신체에 가하는 고통의 유무와 정도 등을 아울러 참작하여 신중하게 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The determination must be made carefully, giving due consideration, in combination, to whether and to what extent pain was inflicted upon the victim's body.
Factors
- 해당 행위의 신체지향성 유무와 정도
- 행위자와 피해자의 공간적 근접성
- 피고인의 행위로 인하여 갑의 신체에 대한 위험성이 있었다고 보이지 않는 점
- 단순히 갑을 놀라게 하거나 겁을 주었다는 것만으로 ‘폭행’으로 볼 수 없는 점
- 피고인이 책상을 뒤집어엎은 방향은 다른 책상으로 막혀 있었고
Unofficial English translation
• Whether and to what extent the act in question is directed toward the body
• The spatial proximity between the actor and the victim
• The fact that no danger to A's body appears to have arisen from the defendant's act
• The fact that merely startling or frightening A cannot be regarded as 'assault'
• The fact that the direction in which the defendant overturned the desk was blocked by another desk, and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2016. 10. 27. 선고 2016도9302 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9302 decided October 27, 2016
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2016. 10. 27. 선고 2016도9302 판결, 대법원 2018. 6. 15. 선고 2017도21374 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the act was directed elsewhere but the scattering of fragments toward the victim was foreseeable and aimed at the victim's position, would the same reasoning still exclude force against the body?
A judgment of the Uijeongbu District Court after the remand would show how the Court's factors apply to a desk overturned in a meeting room. A later Supreme Court decision on foreseeable scattering toward the victim, or any change to the test for force without contact, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the act was directed elsewhere but the scattering of fragments toward the victim was foreseeable and aimed at the victim's position, would the same reasoning still exclude force against the body?” vs Independent “What degree of bodily directedness and direct physical danger would suffice for assault where force causes no bodily contact?”
The primary asks about foreseeable fragments aimed toward the victim, while the independent asks about the general threshold for assault without bodily contact.
피해자의 신체에 접촉하지 않은 사안에서 사람에 대한 유형력의 행사가 폭행에 해당하는지를 판단할 때에는 폭행죄의 보호법익이 ‘신체’의 완전성이라는 점을 충분히 고려하면서, 해당 행위의 신체지향성 유무와 정도, 그로 인한 피해자의 신체에 대한 위법성의 정도 및 직접성, 행위자와 피해자의 공간적 근접성, 행위의 직접적인 목적과 의도, 행위의 태양과 종류, 수단과 방법, 행위 당시의 정황, 피해자의 신체에 가하는 고통의 유무와 정도 등을 아울러 참작하여 신중하게 판단하여야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Uijeongbu District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 7 April 2023 (2022No329), left in place the first-instance finding of guilt. It relied on the fact that the defendant and the victim were less than one metre apart, that the defendant overturned the desk while arguing with his gaze toward the victim, and that fragments of the desk struck the victim, while the sudden act startled and intimidated the victim and others.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the table was overturned in the defendant's forward direction, not the direction in which the victim stood at about ten o'clock, and that another desk blocked the path, so no danger to the victim's body appeared. Merely startling or frightening the victim cannot be assault, and the intention to exercise unlawful force against the body could not be concluded either; because the court below had misread the law on the elements of assault and that error affected the judgment, it reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the act was directed at the victim and created a risk to the victim's body, so that the body-directed nature and directness of the force are present.
- A case in which the force actually caused pain to the victim's body or contact with it, which this decision did not need to decide.
- A case in which the evidence shows an intention to exercise unlawful force against the victim's body, since the Court found that such an intention could not be concluded here.
Record verification notes
Set the geometry of the scene against this decision before relying on it: where the victim stood, in which direction the desk was overturned, and what blocked the path between them. Then separate the evidence of the act's direction from the evidence of the result, since the Court treated the fragment striking the victim as only an incidental consequence. The reasoning rests on Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and the record as it stood, so confirm which facts were proved at trial.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 폭행죄에서 말하는 ‘폭행’의 의미 및 반드시 피해자의 신체에 접촉함을 요하는지 여부(소극) / 피해자의 신체에 접촉하지 않은 사안에서 사람에 대한 유형력의 행사가 ‘폭행’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 [2] 피고인과 갑은 아파트 입주자대표회의의 회장과 감사 사이인데, 피고인이 입주자대표회의 회의실에서 회의록 작성과 관련하여 갑과 시비하던 중 화가 나 양손으로 앞에 놓인 책상을 갑이 서 있던 방향으로 뒤집어엎어 갑을 폭행하였다는 내용으로 기소된 사안에서, 피고인이 한 행위의 부수적인 결과로 갑에게 책상 파편 일부가 튀었다는 사정을 비롯하여 검사가 제출한 증거들에서 알 수 있는 사정들만으로는 피고인이 갑을 폭행하였다거나, 피고인에게 폭행의 고의가 있었던 것으로 단정할 수 없다는 이유로, 이와 달리 보아 피고인에게 유죄를 인정한 원심판단에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of 'assault' in the crime of assault and whether physical contact with the victim's body is necessarily required (negative) / The criteria for determining whether the exercise of physical force against a person constitutes 'assault' in a case where there was no physical contact with the victim's body [2] A case in which Defendant and A were the president and the auditor, respectively, of the apartment residents' representative council, and the defendant was prosecuted on the charge that, while arguing with A over the writing of minutes in the meeting room of the residents' representative council, the defendant, becoming angry, overturned the desk in front of him with both hands in the direction in which A was standing, thereby assaulting A, and the Supreme Court held that the judgment of the court below, which found the defendant guilty upon a different view, was in misapprehension of legal principles, on the ground that, among the circumstances that can be ascertained from the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the circumstance that some fragments of the desk flew onto A as an incidental result of the defendant's act, those circumstances alone cannot establish that the defendant assaulted A or that the defendant had intent to commit assault
Summary of the holding
[1] 폭행죄에서 말하는 폭행이란 사람의 신체에 대하여 불법한 유형력을 행사함을 뜻하는 것으로서 반드시 피해자의 신체에 접촉함을 필요로 하는 것은 아니다. 다만 형법상 폭행죄는 사람의 신체에 대한 완전성을 보호하기 위한 것이지 사람의 심리적 불안감까지 보호하기 위한 것은 아니므로, 피해자의 신체에 접촉하지 않은 사안에서 사람에 대한 유형력의 행사가 폭행에 해당하는지를 판단할 때에는 폭행죄의 보호법익이 ‘신체’의 완전성이라는 점을 충분히 고려하면서, 해당 행위의 신체지향성 유무와 정도, 그로 인한 피해자의 신체에 대한 위법성의 정도 및 직접성, 행위자와 피해자의 공간적 근접성, 행위의 직접적인 목적과 의도, 행위의 태양과 종류, 수단과 방법, 행위 당시의 정황, 피해자의 신체에 가하는 고통의 유무와 정도 등을 아울러 참작하여 신중하게 판단하여야 한다. [2] 피고인과 갑은 아파트 입주자대표회의의 회장과 감사 사이인데, 피고인이 입주자대표회의 회의실에서 회의록 작성과 관련하여 갑과 시비하던 중 화가 나 양손으로 앞에 놓인 책상을 갑이 서 있던 방향으로 뒤집어엎어 갑을 폭행하였다는 내용으로 기소된 사안에서, 피고인이 약 1m가 안 되는 가까운 위치에 있던 갑과 말다툼 중 갑자기 피고인 앞에 있는 책상을 피고인의 정면 방향(피고인 기준 12시 방향)으로 뒤집어엎은 사실은 인정되나, 피고인이 책상을 뒤집어엎은 방향은 다른 책상으로 막혀 있었고, 갑은 피고인 기준 약 10시 방향에 서 있었으므로, 피고인의 행위로 인하여 갑의 신체에 대한 위험성이 있었다고 보이지 않는 점, 단순히 갑을 놀라게 하거나 겁을 주었다는 것만으로 ‘폭행’으로 볼 수 없는 점 등을 종합할 때 피고인의 행위를 갑의 신체에 대한 불법한 유형력의 행사로 보기 어렵고, 또한 피고인에게 갑의 신체에 대한 불법한 유형력을 행사하겠다는 의도가 있었다고 단정하기도 어려우므로, 결국 피고인이 한 행위의 부수적인 결과로 갑에게 책상 파편 일부가 튀었다는 사정을 비롯하여 검사가 제출한 증거들에서 알 수 있는 사정들만으로는 피고인이 갑을 폭행하였다거나, 피고인에게 폭행의 고의가 있었던 것으로 단정할 수 없다는 이유로, 이와 달리 보아 피고인에게 유죄를 인정한 원심의 판단에 폭행죄의 성립에 관한 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제260조 제1항 / [2] 형법 제13조, 제260조 제1항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger