1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of interfering with the business of April 20, 201 among the facts charged in the instant case (excluding the part of acquittal in the grounds of appeal) and June 15, 2011. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor in light of the records, the lower court was justifiable in having determined that there was no proof of crime as to the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Defamation, Violence, Etc. (joint assault), intimidation, business obstruction as of April 18, 201, and business obstruction as of April 19, 201, and business obstruction as of April 20, 201 (excluding the part concerning the crime) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, 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

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, and thus, in this case where a fine is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of the

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