A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and abolition of the original right only forged by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant forgery”).

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable, because the general public did not have an appearance to the extent that he could be mistaken for a genuine currency.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail as to whether the Defendant constitutes the crime of forging currency. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the above evidence and the evidence adopted and investigated by this court are sufficiently recognized to have the appearance of the general public to the extent that the forgery of the instant case can be mistaken for a genuine currency. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected. ① D’s receipt of the forgery of the instant case from the Defendant was considered as a witness at this court, and considered as a fake money when the Defendant showed the forgery of the instant case. It was difficult to see that the Defendant’s use of a fake currency by confirming that it was a fake money and that it was a genuine forgery of a bank employee in the video currency, and that it was difficult to see that the Defendant’s use of the instant forgery and the Defendant’s appearance was a forgery of the instant case.