In light of relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the exercise of tangible force in a special crime, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, which found the Defendant guilty of having committed special assault and intrusion on residence among the facts charged in the instant case.

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 prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the Defendant, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

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