1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted the Defendant of all of the charges of this case (excluding the part not found the Defendant not guilty at the lower court) on charges of special obstruction of performance of official duties, special obstruction of performance of official duties, and general traffic obstruction and demonstration as of May 24, 2014. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic

In addition, the argument that there was an error of deviation from discretion in sentencing determination by the court below is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument. According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in the case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have rendered a not-guilty verdict on the instant facts charged (excluding the part which was found guilty in the original trial) by deeming that there was no evidence of crime. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by violating logical

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