beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal
A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty on the part of the instant facts charged, on the grounds that there was no proof of crime, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding 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 embezzlement.
B. The prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below, which sentenced two years of the suspended sentence to the defendant in six months of imprisonment, is too uneasible and unfair.
However, under 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, a final appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. In cases where a sentence of death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed on the defendant, a prosecutor cannot file an appeal on the grounds that the punishment is too
(see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1108, 2016Do12, April 15, 2016). Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.
2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of forging private documents, uttering of private investigation documents, and fraud 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 exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent and consent of the crime of forging private documents, the intentional act of uttering of a falsified document, and the criminal intent of deceptive act and
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.