"B. Forgery of private documents" and "collaboration of private documents" among the indication of the judgment of the court below.

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law such as misunderstanding of facts as to illegal acquisition intent is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 380(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal shall be dismissed, and since there is an obvious clerical error in the name of the court below and the name of the crime against the defendant, it shall be corrected pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the

January 10, 2020