The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court: (a) the duties performed by C as a proxy by the Chairperson of the Representative Council of Residents of this case constitutes “the duties” subject to protection of interference with the duties under the Criminal Act; and (b) the Defendant, who was dismissed from office, keeps the official seal of the Representative Council of Residents, the seal of the head of the reduction of banking transaction and the key of the Office of the Representative Council of Residents; and (c) interfered with C’s performance of duties as a person responsible

In view of the facts charged of this case, the lower court convicted the Defendant.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the duties to be protected in the crime of interference with business, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case because they differ from the instant case.

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the amount of punishment imposed is extremely unfair, only for cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed.

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too excessive and unfair is not a legitimate appeal.

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