The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of intimidation in the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, 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 establishment of intimidation.

The argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to obstruction of another’s exercise of rights among the facts charged of this case is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since the Defendant’s ground for appeal or the lower court’s ex officio decision did not constitute a ground for appeal.

In addition, according to 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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