The crime of forging and larceny was not committed.

The amount of punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) determined is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant recognized all the facts charged at the prosecutor’s office and the lower court.

F and K police statements are supported by the confessions of the defendant.

The defendant reversed the confession statement in the appellate court, and the defendant's statement of reversal is sufficient to accept it.

It is difficult to deem that there is evidence to support this.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869, Oct. 13, 2016). In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts in its judgment that found the Defendant guilty of forging and larceny charges, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court, on the assertion of unfair sentencing, selected a sentence within the scope of the applicable sentencing range and the recommended sentencing range set forth in the attached sentencing guidelines (one month to three years from imprisonment).

The punishment was determined by forging the disposal document by comprehensively taking into account the nature of the crime that stolen high-priced vehicles, the victim F's suicide, the restoration of damage, the criminal records, etc.

There is no change in sentencing elements in the appellate court.

Even if this court re-examines the sentencing factors and other factors of sentencing which are set forth in the sentencing criteria, the determination of the original sentence is inappropriate.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit.

The dismissal under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed.