The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the preparation of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that all of the complaints filed on the part of the private document forgery and uttering were false, and rejected the allegation of the grounds for appeal by mistake of facts.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such fact-finding by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which substantially belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the first instance court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on false facts and intent, which constitute the elements of a crime of false accusation, or by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation principle, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

In addition, the argument in the grounds of appeal that Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, infringes on the people's rights to be tried and violates the principle of excessive prohibition and equality, cannot be accepted as it violates the established Supreme Court precedents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003; 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Examining the grounds of appeal in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment, it is the purport of substantially disputing the sentencing of the lower court.

In this regard, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty is the death penalty.