The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of obstruction of the performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, the lower court did not err 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 legality of performing official duties.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance which recognized mental disorder, and argued mental disorder along with mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and unfair sentencing as grounds for appeal, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal against mental disorder on the first trial date of the court below

In such a case, the argument that the lower court did not recognize the disability, such as mental disorder, does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison 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 argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not

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