A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Seized evidence 1 to 5 shall be confiscated, respectively.

A. In light of the misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant believed the explanation that the Defendant would collect gambling loans from the victims, printed out the documents under the name of the Financial Services Commission as they were, and received money from the victims, and the Defendant did not have the ability to easily grasp the contents of the documents written in Korean language, and thus printed out the forged documents in the name of the Financial Services Commission, which was delivered by the victims without his name, and delivered them to the victims without accurately understanding the contents of the falsified documents, and accordingly, the same victim was three times or three times over the two pages, and even after the police was arrested, the Defendant voluntarily expressed the remaining crimes. However, even though it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had an incomplete intention to do so with regard to the Defendant’s act of borrowing money from the victims, the lower court convicted the victims of the entire charges of this case, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that: (a) in light of the Defendant’s ability to make a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in Korean language or his career in Korea, the Defendant was guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was guilty on the ground that, in light of the Defendant’s ability to make a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the content of the document in the name of the Financial Services Commission was false, and it was confirmed that the Defendant could have sufficiently known that he had no connection with the collection of gambling claims; and (b) the Defendant’s age, intellectual ability, frequency and method of doing work, etc.

The judgment of the court below is above.