On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) determined that the Defendant’s act constitutes the crime of interference with business; and (b) determined that the Defendant’s act does not constitute a self-help and a justifiable act under the Criminal Act; and (c) rejected the Defendant’s allegation in the grounds of appeal

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on work, wording, and legitimate act in the crime of interference with business.

Meanwhile, the argument that the facts charged were not specified is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted in the final appeal that the defendant deemed the grounds for appeal, or that the court below was not subject to an ex officio determination.

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