The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (the mistake and misapprehension of the legal principle) did not constitute a conspiracy to forge a check with F, G, H, and H.

Each of the instant checks was reproduced only on the face and did not have the appearance as a true check.

(b) The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and five million won of fine) of the first instance court (unfair punishment) is too uneased and unfair;

2. Determination

A. According to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the criminal defendant who has forged the Chapter 3,166 of the cashier's checks of KRW 100,00,00 should be sentenced to the punishment of concurrent crimes in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by omitting it.

In addition, Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that "a person who forges or alters a check shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a term of not less than one year and by a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the check." Therefore, the criminal defendant's violation of the illegal check control by forging a cashier's check shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a term of not less than one year and a fine not exceeding one million won.

A fine shall not exceed 1.5 million won, even if the penalty for concurrent crimes is aggravated pursuant to Article 38 (1) 2.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous in imposing a fine of five million won against the defendant in excess of the upper limit of the above fine.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance cannot be maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the first instance trial, and the first instance court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by stating in detail the judgment on the issue under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the written judgment.

comparison with records.