Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was guilty of interference with business around January 10, 2017 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the obstruction of business by force.

In addition, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to interference with the operation of each business around January 9, 2017, around September 1, 2017, and around September 12, 2017 among the facts charged in the instant case, or by misapprehending the legal principles, or by failing to deliberate on mental or physical disorder, etc., among the facts charged in the instant case, is not a legitimate ground for appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparagraph 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 punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair 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.