1. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant’s act constituted legitimate defense, as to the obstruction of performing official duties against D among the facts charged in the instant case.

The prosecutor asserts that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legality of arrest of flagrant offenders and the defense of political parties.

However, even if examining the relevant legal principles and records, there is no such error in the judgment of the court below.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to the grounds for appeal by the defendant, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment was affected by grave mistake of facts, or that the amount of punishment is extremely unreasonable, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has

In the instant case where a more minor sentence was imposed against the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds of appeal.

One of the arguments is that evidence preparation and fact-finding falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, or that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, the argument that the defendant was in a state of mental or physical weakness at the time of committing the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties on February 15, 2016 is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since the defendant asserts that he was in a state of mental or physical weakness, or that he was not subject to the judgment by the court below ex officio

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