For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the part concerning obstruction of performance of duties against the victim C and the part concerning obstruction of performance of official duties, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion

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 in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “comforcing” in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, “defluence” in the crime of

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 is allowed.

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.