The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for arrest of flagrant offenders or the legality or commercial concurrence of police officers’ duties

Meanwhile, in the grounds of appeal, the argument that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case even if it is justified because the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or a legitimate act or the victim's consent or constructive consent was rejected, is not a legitimate ground of appeal since the defendant's grounds of appeal are alleged as the grounds of appeal or the court below's decision was not subject to

Furthermore, the lower court did not err in its determination as otherwise alleged in the grounds of 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, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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