A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Records] The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for two and a half years with prison labor for forgery of currency in the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on January 24, 2017 and is currently pending in the appellate trial.

[2] On August 1, 2016, the Defendant issued KRW 10,00 in the Seoul Seongbuk-gu apartment building and “F” office where the Defendant is working for the Defendant, as set forth in 10,00,00 won on the part of the Defendant’s early August 1, 2016, and divided the duplicate 10,000 won on the part of the Bank of Korea, and copied the front side to Chapter A4, and copied it to the same form in the same way as the back in accordance with its location, and then produced Chapter 45,00 won in the Republic of Korea as prepared in advance.

Accordingly, the defendant, for the purpose of exercising his money, has aided money respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. AF statement;

1. A report on the occurrence of a disaster and a photograph of such a disaster;

1. Results of requesting the identification of field fingerprints;

1. Application of counterfeited monetary Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 207(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for the crime (in comprehensive, choice of imprisonment with prison labor for abandonment);

1. Determination as to the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (the following grounds for sentencing) (the grounds for conviction)

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the facts charged of this case are included in the charges pending in the appellate trial (in particular, the part concerning the crime of fabrication of paper paper used in the use of fake currency use No. 4 times the month, hereinafter referred to as the "prior charges of this case"), and thus, the prosecution of this case constitutes double prosecution.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the instant facts charged are clear that it is not included in the preceding facts charged, and thus, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s above assertion is not accepted.

(i)..