All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the conflict among the facts charged in the instant case and violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to assault and threat, causation, and establishment of a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of forging private documents and uttering of falsified Private Document among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment 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 acceptance or implied consent of the crime of forging private documents or the establishment of the crime of uttering of private documents.

In addition, the argument that the crime of uttering of an investigation document related to the provision of the Civil Procedure Act was caused by an illegal naval investigation is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant alleged in the ground for appeal that it was not the ground for appeal or that it was not subject to an ex officio decision by the court below.

Furthermore, even if examining in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the investigation of naval vessels.

Meanwhile, 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 has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.