The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the part concerning mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, forgery of counterfeited currency, and use of counterfeited currency, ① since the paper copied by the Defendant did not have an appearance to the extent that the general public might mislead him into a genuine currency, it did not reach the degree of “facing”, ② the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged, on the grounds that he only made a forged paper paper of this case to show that he was able to pay money at the time, and thus, the Defendant did not have the purpose to exercise the forged paper of this case. ③ The Defendant issued a forged paper of this case to H and I for the purpose of receiving narcotics once at the time, and distributed it to H and I, and the Defendant was aware that H and I had the above KRW 50,000 was a forged paper, and thus, the Defendant’s act did not constitute “use” of falsified currency, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (a punishment of four years of imprisonment, confiscation, collection charge of 300,00 won, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, legal doctrine, and evidence rules, the lower court’s determination is lawful, and the Defendant’s use and use of currency as stated in the facts charged can be recognized. Accordingly, the lower court’s determination is justified, and the Defendant’s allegation in this part is without merit.

① The Defendant acknowledged each of the facts charged in the lower judgment.

② In relation to “Counterfeit,” the instant forged paper is reproduced by using a slickner, etc. for the combined use of a color, size, shape, etc., and is almost similar to pneumoconiosis (the currency actually issued), and there is a little difference from the pneumoconiosis.

Even if it is difficult to easily identify the situation before the detailed observation, the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 26 June 26, 2014) related to the occurrence of a loss.