1. As to the prosecuted case, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the part of unlawful uttering of official documents among the facts charged of this case on the ground that the disabled person’s welfare card has the same certification function in addition to the certification function.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of unlawful uttering of official documents.

Defendant

In addition, examining various circumstances, such as the age and behavior environment of the person subject to probation order requester (hereinafter “defendant”), relationship with victims, motive means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after committing the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s maintenance of the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to 12 years imprisonment, etc. is extremely unfair.

The argument that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant asserts that the defendant did not regard it as the ground for appeal or that the court below did not consider it as the subject of ex officio.

2. As long as a defendant files an appeal against a prosecuted case regarding a request for probation order, the request for probation order shall be deemed to have been appealed.

However, there is no indication of the reason in the petition of appeal and there is no ground for appeal on this part.

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