The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of forging private documents and uttering of falsified documents related to AA, a document title among the facts charged in this case, and there is no violation of law of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, when there is a request for consolidation of pleadings, whether or not to consolidate pleadings belongs to the discretion of the court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Do706 delivered on June 23, 1987, etc.). The lower court did not combine the instant case with other cases of the Defendant’s assertion.

On the other hand, the first ground for appeal cannot be accepted on a different premise, since it cannot be viewed as an unlawful act.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to eight months from September 26, 2013, which was after each of the instant crimes, to imprisonment with prison labor on December 14, 2013 with respect to fabrication of private documents, etc. at the Jeonju District Court Military Branch Branch of the Jeonju District Court on September 26, 2013, and that the said judgment became final and conclusive. Since each of the instant crimes and the crime for which the said judgment became final and conclusive are in a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it is obvious that the first instance judgment was reversed and again sentenced to punishment for each of the instant crimes in consideration of equity and the case where each of the instant crimes and the judgment became final and conclusive under Article 39(1)

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, may be appealed on the ground that the amount of punishment is extremely unreasonable. Thus, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable is legitimate.