Flipping over a desk during an argument does not constitute criminal assault under the Criminal Act unless it poses a direct physical threat to the other party, the Supreme Court has ruled.
According to legal sources on the 10th, the first division of the Supreme Court (presiding Justice Ma Yong-joo) recently overturned a lower court ruling that imposed a fine on a 60-year-old man identified as A on assault charges, and sent the case back to the Uijeongbu District Court.
A was indicted for flipping over a desk in front of the victim, identified as B, during a heated argument at an apartment residents' representative meeting room in Goyang, Gyeonggi Province, in May 2021. Fragments of the desk flew toward B, and the sudden action caused B to feel considerable threat and fear, according to the investigation.
The first and second trials found A guilty of assault and imposed a fine of 300,000 won.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of A, concluding that flipping the desk did not amount to assault. The court cited the low risk of the overturned desk coming into direct contact with the victim's body as one of the grounds for its decision. "Assault under the law means exercising unlawful tangible force against a person's body, and does not necessarily require physical contact," the court said. "However, assault under the Criminal Act is intended to protect the integrity of the body, not psychological anxiety."
The Supreme Court said that when determining whether an exercise of tangible force without physical contact constitutes assault, courts must carefully consider factors including the degree to which the act is directed at the body, the unlawfulness and directness toward the body, spatial proximity, direct purpose and intent, and the presence and degree of physical pain. The court also noted that A flipped the desk toward the front rather than toward the 10 o'clock direction where the victim was standing. "While it is true that the defendant's conduct was somewhat rough and rude and startled the victim, the court reaffirmed the legal principle that the scope of assault should not be broadened carelessly unless the act reaches the level of exerting direct physical influence on the body," the court said.
