The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err 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, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The lower court determined that the instant indictment, which was charged by applying Articles 3(1)20 and 347(1) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, did not apply Article 3(1)20 and 39 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act with respect to the Defendant’s crime of interference with the business of the Defendant and the crime of interference with the operation of the Defendant, cannot be deemed as significantly deviating from the prosecution discretion.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The assertion that the lower judgment erred by infringing on the fundamental contents of the principle of balance of crimes and the principle of responsibility constitutes an allegation of unreasonable sentencing.

According 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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