The office of public prosecution accused a defendant of forging banking documents, robbery and entering a house with the approval of its owner.

The court ruled that the defendant should be imprisoned for three years.

The office and the defendant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court dismissed the two appeals and upheld the appealed ruling.

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of cassation. He said in his grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law. He said that criminal intention had not been existed in his case.

The court said that this argument was invalid. The court said that the case documents had revealed that the criminal intention had been existed in the case because the defendant had forged banking documents in order to steal from the victim. The court said that the criminal intention had therefore existed in the case.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appealed ruling.