For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted him/her of interference with and interference with each worship on November 26, 2017, December 1, 2017, January 27, 2019, January 27, 2019, February 3, 2019, and January 13, 2019, and insult on January 13, 2019.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, 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 the establishment of a crime of interference with worship and the crime of interference with business.

The assertion that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of legal doctrine as to the obstruction of worship due to interference with worship and the establishment of insult on April 22, 2018 is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine as to the establishment of the crime of insult. It is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the Defendant’s ground for appeal is based on either the Defendant’s ground for appeal or the lower court’s

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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be deemed 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.