After remanding on February 4, 2013, the lower court rendered a judgment (hereinafter referred to as “the lower court after remanding”) found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the injury caused by special obstruction of performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment after remanding the case in light of the evidence duly admitted after remand, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on evidence law, the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, the abuse of authority to institute prosecution

In addition, the ground of appeal that the defendant raised by the court below after remand does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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 sentencing of

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