The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that all of the facts charged in this case was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the principle of presumption of innocence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to

In addition, pursuant 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 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

Meanwhile, among the grounds of appeal, the argument that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and injury in the crime of injury shall not be a legitimate ground of appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant or by the court below

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