1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case (excluding the part not guilty) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, contrary

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less 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 above defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor in light of the records, it is justifiable for the lower court to have maintained the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants of each of the instant charges (excluding the part concerning the charge) on the ground that the Defendants constituted a case where there is no proof of crime. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of uttering of forged securities, the

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