On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged of the instant case. Examining the records and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of interference with duties, and obstruction of official duties, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

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 has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable is unfair for the defendant

Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, shall not be deemed to violate Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the constitutional provisions that stipulate the rights of the people to be tried by the Supreme Court, or unconstitutional provisions that are contrary to the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, the grounds for appeal that Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

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