However, on July 3, 2013, after the deadline for submission was expired, there is only a submission of a statement of grounds for appeal claiming mistake of facts as to special obstruction of performance of official duties and unreasonable sentencing. Further to the various circumstances appropriately cited by the court below, the court below seems to have been extremely difficult for police and prosecution investigators to copy the server managing the roster of party members in light of the field circumstances at the time. ② The court below allowed the release of the original server subject to seizure under certain conditions on the search and seizure warrant in this case. ② If the person subject to seizure refuses to participate or is unable to expect cooperation, the court did not guarantee the seal of the server and the participation of the person subject to seizure. ③ The execution of the search and seizure warrant was executed in compliance with the procedural provisions of the search and seizure procedure (Articles 219, 118, 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, the court below dismissed the defendant's appeal as well as the court below's decision as to the appeal under Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) of the lower court (e.g., one year and six years of suspended execution in one year and six months of imprisonment, and 80 hours of community service order) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. The instant case is a matter that interferes with the performance of official duties of police officers and prosecution investigators who executed the warrant of search and seizure by destroying the Defendant’s van glass, preventing the course of the knife with other D party members, and punishing the knife with the knife with other D party members.