The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment of a lien or the possession of an occupation assistant, the crime of intrusion into a structure, the crime of destroying property, the crime of obstruction of business, the establishment of a legitimate act, the intentional act, and the act of ex post facto gifting, and the justifiable grounds in legal errors.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in deviating from the discretion of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against 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.