Key legal question
Whether the appeal complied with the Federal Supreme Court's reasoning and substantiation requirements for challenging factual findings.
Extracted holding
The appeal did not meet the required standards insofar as it attacked the facts; the factual criticisms were therefore inadmissible.
Extracted reasoning
The appellant mostly presented an appellatory version of the facts and did not show arbitrariness with specific constitutional reasoning as required by Art. 97(1) and 106(2) LTF.