2. We also examine each of the allegation of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor.

The fact that the defendant confessions and reflects, the fact that the bill that the defendant altered is recovered, and the damage caused by the withdrawal seems to have been most recovered, and the fact that the defendant is relatively old is a relatively old person is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case is that the defendant uses a promissory note, which is a securities, to forge and use it, the nature of the crime is not good, and the liability for the crime is grave, and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the judgment of the court below. Since the statutory punishment of each of the crimes of this case is no other type than imprisonment, it is inevitable to sentence imprisonment with prison labor, and the court below

Considering the above circumstances and other circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too minor or unreasonable.

Therefore, each of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments on unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.