beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In order to establish a crime of forging a private signature, etc., a signature, etc. shall reach the extent that the signature, etc. is made to be recorded with the authentic signature, etc. of a specific person. Whether it is sufficient for the general public to mislead the specific person with the authentic signature, etc. shall also be determined by taking into account not only the form and appearance of the signature, etc., the necessity of signing, etc. in a document stating the signature, etc., the details of preparation of the document, type and content
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4478 delivered on December 23, 2005). Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court upheld the first instance court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the charge, on the ground that the act of indicating in the signature column of the driver’s E, the act of indicating in the driver’s signature column, among the notice of the drinking driving control that was marked on a portable information device (PDA), the Defendant’s act of forging a private signature and the part of the use of the investigation signature, when the Defendant was controlled by drinking driving, the name of the same student E was replaced and investigated.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the crime of forgery of private signature and the
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 may be filed on the ground
Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.