All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1 was found to have received US dollars 100 and 2 US dollars 100 from E around the end of December, 2016 (hereinafter “instant USD”). However, the Defendant did not know that the instant USD was forged merely because E was “old US dollars.”

Nevertheless, the lower court acquired and exercised the instant USD by recognizing that it was forged.

Recognizing the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, C, and E (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and four months, Defendant C, and E) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake, the fact that the Defendant acquired USD A from E and delivered it to the next B, with the knowledge of the forgery of the instant USD at least, can be fully recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error by mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① Even on the sole ground that E, without going through a normal exchange procedure through a financial institution, etc., requested the Defendant to refund or encash the instant USD, there is a possibility that USD 1 may not be true currencies from the standpoint of the Defendant.

He had been suspected.

② The Defendant asserted that the instant USD was only the old “U.S. dollars” and on the other hand, the ordinary person written the old USD.