A. In fact, the Defendant is authorized to make an endorsement in the form of endorsement of a promissory note in the name of L, since the Defendant was delegated with the exclusive right by L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”).

In mind, there is an error of mistake in the court below's finding the defendant guilty, even though G and Q did not have been involved in the discount process of a bill and there was no error of mistake in the fact in the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the victim resisted the defendant several times at the net construction site, etc., and protested against the defendant with respect to the sale of F loan after discount of bills, and the defendant directly emphasized the victim's financial capability, stated that the bill will be endorsed in L, and the bill will be arranged in L, and even if the bill was forged, the part which the victim had been written in 10,000.

The phrase “”, ② Q A, and the Defendant knew that Q Q would request the victim to discount a bill through Q, and agreed that the bill discount amount entered into the E account.

(3) around October 201, G knew that the Defendant was also aware of the fact that the F Borrowing’s right to sell is not E.

In the statement, the Defendant was aware that there was no collateral value even if the Defendant provided the Victim with the F lending contract as a collateral, and ④ The Defendant received discount from the injured party on the condition that Q Q was refused to discount a bill from the injured party, on the condition that the bill is again offered as a collateral for endorsement in the name of L and the sale contract for F lending.