According to the records, while appealed from the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant asserted only the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the obstruction of performance of official duties, and mental and physical disorder among the facts charged in the instant case (excluding the part on which dismissal of prosecution and not guilty were judged) as

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts as to the charges of this case cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the obstruction of performance of official duties among the facts charged of the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there were no errors 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 obstruction of performance of official duties

Meanwhile, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the mental and physical disorder on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without 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 above assertion is

Other grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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