The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted each of the Defendants on the grounds that there was no proof of a crime regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the “ Monetary Forgery”) and the fraud as stated in the No. 14 of the attached Table 2 of the judgment below, and the said

The scope of this court's adjudication shall be limited to the conviction of the original judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserting the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is merely a copy of a paper made of a general drawing, and the appearance of the paper which was reproduced did not reach a level likely to mislead the general public.

Nevertheless, since the court below recognized that the defendant forged and used a counterfeited call, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on forgery of a currency and the use of a forged currency, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the assertion of unfair sentencing (a three-year imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the crime of forging the relevant legal doctrine and the crime of uttering of a counterfeited currency, which are the objects of the crime of forging the currency, have an appearance to such an extent that the general public might misunderstand the true currency in the course of distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7704, Mar. 29, 2012). However, the degree of the above provision must have to be satisfed in the truth, or there is no need to make it difficult for anyone to easily distinguish the truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do570, Apr. 23, 1985). The lower court determined that the crime of forging the instant currency and the crime of uttering of a forged currency, in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, were established. The Defendant made the fake currency by copying it by means of a 50,000 won satisfying the entire size of the instant currency.