For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted him of the charge of aiding and abetting official documents among the facts charged in the instant case.

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 legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of forging official documents.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that there was a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to fraud among the facts charged in the instant case. However, it is alleged that the Defendant’s ground for appeal or the lower court did not consider it as being subject to ex officio in the final appeal, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders.

The argument that the judgment below did not calculate the proper scope of recommendation and did not specify the reasons for sentencing in detail is ultimately an assertion of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

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