According to the records, the defendant did not have any intention to commit the fraud in the statement of grounds for appeal.

The lower court, on the trial of the lower court, rejected the Defendant’s appeal on the sole ground that the Defendant’s grounds for appeal merely considered the Defendant’s grounds for appeal as the allegation of unfair sentencing, and dismissed the Defendant’s appeal without determining a mistake of facts.

However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the defendant can be found to have committed the crime of forging fraud and private document as stated in the facts charged, so the omission of judgment by the lower court does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

On the other hand, the argument that the court below violated the law by failing to reflect all the circumstances affecting the sentencing in determining the punishment against the defendant is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing. According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the determination of the punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Other grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal as stipulated in Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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