The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

After the appellate court jointly examines the case against the defendant who was sentenced to two separate punishments in the first instance trial, and tried the case as concurrent crimes, it does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do3448, Sept. 18, 2001; 2019Do4122, Jul. 25, 2019). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the defendant appealed for three years in the first instance judgment and one year and two months in the second judgment of the first instance, who was sentenced to suspension of the execution of one year and two months in the second judgment of the first instance, on the ground of unfair sentencing, and the lower court concurrently tried the above cases and sentenced the defendant for three years and four years in imprisonment with prison labor.

Examining the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the foregoing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations and did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the crime of forging private documents and the crime of forging public documents.

The argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing contains an error of incomplete deliberation on basic facts for sentencing constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 not less 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 is not a legitimate ground for appeal.