The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, the court below’s determination that the defendant was guilty of intimidation among the facts charged in this case is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience or by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of intimidation.

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred in the misconception of facts or incomplete deliberation as to the crime of injury is not a legitimate ground for appeal, which is alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant, or that the court below did not consider it as a subject of judgment ex officio.

In addition, under 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

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