The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant check was forged.

(2) Each fraud (the crime No. 2 and No. 3 of the original judgment) does not constitute a fraud by deceiving the victim J and M.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment and eight months of imprisonment for the crimes No. 1 and 3 in its ruling) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court, including co-defendants’ statement of the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, including the fact that the instant check was a forged check, and the Defendant’s acquisition and use of the instant check, it is recognized that the instant check was issued to C by either aware that it was a forged check or at least dolusently recognized it.

① At the investigative agency and the court of the court below, Co-defendant G, a co-defendant in the court of the court below, stated that “I heard from R the opinion that the Defendant is seeking a high-amount check, and, together with R, notified the Defendant of the fact that the check was a forged check.”

② Although the Defendant asserted that G was believed to believe that it was a true check, the Defendant stated that “G did not state that it was a true check at the time when it was issued the instant check to the Defendant,” even according to the R’s original legal statement in the lower court.

③ The Defendant also stated that “at the time, there was any doubt as to any abnormal seal affixed.”

(No. 322 of the investigation records in 2013). Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

(2) Each judgment of the court below rendered by the victim J and M as the fraud against the victim J and M, and by the victim M as the victim J and Q, respectively.