1. According to the record as to obstruction of business, violence and intimidation, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing and mental and physical disability as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the law, or misapprehension of the legal principles is not a legitimate ground

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion on the mental disorder on the grounds of its stated reasoning is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules,

2. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, a deadly weapon, etc.), the lower court convicted him/her of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective action, a deadly weapon, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case by applying Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 7891, Mar. 24, 2006; Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “Assault Punishment Act”), and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act.

On September 24, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “The part concerning “a person who commits a crime under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles” (hereinafter “instant provision”) under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences Act shall be unconstitutional.”

Thus, since the provision of this case loses its effect retroactively pursuant to the main sentence of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act due to the decision of unconstitutionality, this part of the facts charged which was prosecuted by applying the provision of this case constitutes a case where it does not constitute a crime.

Therefore, this part.