The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the obstruction of and injury to the performance of official duties, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The allegation that the crime of this case was committed under mental and physical weakness is the reason for appeal specified in the supplementary statement of reasons for appeal submitted after the lapse of the period for appeal, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal.

B. While examining the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the sentence of the court below is unfair because it is also the reason for appeal specified in (2) of the supplementary statement of the reason for appeal submitted after the lapse of the period for appeal, which was not timely filed.

B. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than 10 years is imposed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the Defendant, the argument that the Defendant’s 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.