All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (Definite or misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles merely acted in accordance with the instruction and plan of a person who has not been believed to be a high-amount arbrate, and did not have any criminal intent by deception, and did not recognize that the document was forged. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting all of the facts charged of this case as guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the Defendant’s grounds for appeal on the erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the lower court rejected the judgment in detail on the grounds of “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment of the lower court.

In full view of the facts and circumstances (see, e.g., e., e., e., the lower court’s judgment) that the lower court duly admitted and investigated, it rejected the Defendant’s assertion and the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is justifiable.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. We also examine the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the Defendant and prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015