Judicial judgments, whilst in theory should be, are not meant to be read for the average layman in practice as they would be far too complicated. What you just said is analogous to stating that climate change isn't real, because to the layman, the data for climate change cannot be interpreted.

The use of the dictionary definition is present in a huge amount of legal judgments, and it's use in practice implies nothing other than that the judge wanted clarification on what ordinary people defined the word in question as.

Moreover, you opinion that the use of the dictionary definition as "somebody trying to stretch things as far as they can to win" is frankly ridiculous when taken into context that it is the judge who is using the dictionary definition. Judges have no horse in the race, and all they do is simply apply law, be it statutory or case law. Lawyers 'win', as they get monetary incentive if they argue their case successfully. Judges get no monetary incentive to judge one way or another, so logically that means that there is no other reason for a judge to apply a dictionary definition, other than the fact that he was unclear over the ordinary meaning of the word and that that definition was pertinent to the decision of the case.