All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant did not forge the endorsement in the name of L, i.e., “2014 Highest340, 2014 Highest 340.” The Defendant was delegated by Defendant B with the authority to make an endorsement from AB, and Defendant B was only endorsed in the name of AB according to the direction of Defendant B, and there was no intention to commit an offence under the provision of an unjust sentencing. 2) The punishment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (two months of imprisonment, two years of probation, one hundred and twenty hours of community service, and one hundred and twenty hours of probation) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts as follows: (a) the Defendant, based on the duly adopted and investigated evidence at the lower court and the first instance court, presented the instant promissory note, namely, (b) the endorsement of the instant promissory note to the subcontractor, and (c) the Plaintiff, who received it from NN, solely, forged L’s nominal endorsement; (b) the Defendant was discussed in a separate criminal case and stated that there was a forgery of the instant promissory note; (c) the Defendant received criminal final and conclusive judgment due to such criminal facts; (d) the Defendant collected the instant promissory note from I on November 2009 and delivered it to theO; and (e) the Defendant received the instant promissory note in the column of 2 in the name of L’s name and the column of 3 endorsement in the name of F Co., Ltd. operated by I x 2 in the name of F Co., Ltd. 3 x 3 x 2 in the name of the owner at the time when the instant investigation agency and the statutory endorsement was made; (d) the Defendant’s payment of the instant promis note.