The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of interfering with the business of May 9, 2015 among the facts charged in the instant case and destroying property on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of discretionary power in determining the sentencing of the type of punishment is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.