Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant A guilty on the part of obstructing the instant business and destroying property as stated in the judgment of the court below, and that such act does not constitute legitimate defense or legitimate act. The court below found Defendant A’s obstruction of the business of October 8, 2010 and the part of destroying the property of Defendant D and the part that interfered with the business of January 14, 2011. On the other hand, with respect to the part that interfered with the business of Defendants on January 4, 2011, the court below reversed and found Defendant guilty.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of facts by the lower court, and is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. Moreover, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the relevant legal doctrine and duly adopted evidence, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legitimate defense

In addition, pursuant to 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the circumstance of interference with one’s own business on October 8, 2010 did not properly take into account the sentencing is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is therefore filed.