[2] The case holding that a certificate of balance issued by a Japanese registry and forged as a forged certificate constitutes a claim under Article 234 subparagraph 3 of the Customs Act and other valuable instruments counterfeit

1. The export and import of currencies, bonds, and other securities counterfeited, forged, or copied goods is prohibited pursuant to Article 234 subparag. 3 of the Customs Act. In this case, securities refer to the exercise of property rights indicated on securities and the possession of such securities in the exercise of property rights and disposition of such rights, and if they have two elements that require possession of securities in the exercise and disposition of such rights, they need not necessarily have distribution nature. In addition, the above securities have the form and appearance to the extent that the general public can be mistaken (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2832, Aug. 24, 2001).

According to the records, the balance certificate of this case is issued by the Japanese registry and confirmed that the balance of the refund of state bonds remains as above. It is delivered to the same amount as above. This state bonds shall be treated at the main and branch offices, etc. of the Japanese bank, together with the statement that "No. 57 times" and "No. 1487" are serial numbers, such as "No. 57" and "No. 1487", and the non-indicted 1 and the defendant stated the balance certificate of this case in the investigative agency that the defendant was donated to the "No. 1" foundation working as the vice-chairperson in Japan after obtaining the balance certificate of this case and the defendant stated the balance certificate of this case as the state bonds of this case. The non-indicted 1 holds the balance certificate of this case in order to explain the authenticity of the balance certificate of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the balance certificate of refund 57 times and the summary of the issuance of the balance certificate of this case, and it can be viewed that the defendant's right to exchange of this case No. 3.

2. The court below acknowledged the facts and circumstances as stated in its decision after compiling the evidence of employment, and determined that the defendant conspireds with the non-indicted 2 (the above foundation is a remote foundation) and that the "(name omitted) foundation" could fully recognize the fact by deceiving the victims in spite of the absence of the victims' intent or ability to make an investment as stated in its decision. In light of the records, the court below's determination of facts and finding of facts is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the misconception of facts or the admissibility of evidence due to the violation of the rules of evidence or the violation of the rules of evidence, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

3. In this case where the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for less than 10 years, the reason that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)