The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was a check that has been suspended from payment by J, and the Defendant did not recognize that it was a forged check upon request by I for questioning the person who will be responsible for the security.

In addition, since I called I should not use the check, it was possible to expect I to use the check under the influence of alcohol.

Finally, even if the defendant knew of the fact that he was a forged check, the defendant's delivery of a check to I constitutes an act of delivering it among accomplices because he knew of the fact that he was a forged check.

B. The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the Defendant said that the Defendant would not use the check when issuing I, but distributed I’s actual waterways, and that the Defendant made efforts to recover KRW 2 million while paying it.

2. Determination

A. (i) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts reveals that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the instant check was a forged check, and in light of the following: (i) the Defendant sent the check to I by affixing a photograph consisting of at least 100 pages attached to the floor; (ii) the instant check appears to be part of them; (iii) the Defendant sent the instant check to I and intended to lend KRW 1 million, which is much less than the above face value; and (iv) the Defendant requested I to return the check, including the fact that the Defendant transferred KRW 2 million to I after the Defendant was caused; and (iii) the Defendant was aware of the fact that the check was a forged check; and (iv) the recognition of possibility of distribution and whether the check was established with I and the co-offender; and (v) the Defendant did not expressly state that the instant check was a forged check when the Defendant delivered the check to I.