The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of obstruction of business and damage to property on September 27, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there was no violation of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted misconception of facts as to the obstruction of business and damage to property and mental and physical disorder along with unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal against mental and physical disorder during the first trial of the court below.

In such a case, there is an error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the remaining facts charged except for the above obstruction of business and damage to property.

The argument that there is an error of law that does not recognize the mental disorder of the defendant cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, under 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 not less 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 amount of punishment is unreasonable

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