1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant B in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intimidation in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

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