1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, C, and D in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged (excluding the part of innocence against Defendant D) against the said Defendants were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the "defensive force" of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the elements of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act

Defendant

D's ground of appeal as to interference with the business of September 2, 2011 is that there is an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the first instance.

However, since the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there is no proof of the crime, there is no right to appeal against the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the appeal is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Do1091 delivered on July 29, 1994). Moreover, pursuant to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is declared.

In this case where the above defendants were sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant E, F, G, H, I, and L’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendants guilty of violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act among the facts charged in the instant case against the said Defendants on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

In addition, as seen earlier, the grounds for unfair sentencing are limited.