The judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the compensation order part, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Seized evidence 1, 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first instance judgment of the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) depends only on the defendant's statement that is not reliable, and it is consistent with the facts charged, but it is dismissed and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts.

2) The first deliberation type (one month imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The first deliberation punishment of the Defendant (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Unlike the crime of uttering of a forged public document or private document with intent to protect the credibility of a document as long as the criminal intent is to protect the distribution order of securities, if the delivery agent, as well as when he/she exercised a forged security as if he/she was aware that a forged security was a securities, and even if he/she was delivered to a person with knowledge that the forged security was a securities, the delivery act itself is likely to harm the distribution order of securities, and thus, there is sufficient reason and need for punishment.

As such, the crime of gambling securities is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7120, Jan. 11, 2007).B. We examine the instant case in accordance with such legal doctrine.

In full view of the circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and this Court, the Defendant and E, as stated in this part of the facts charged, are sufficiently recognized that the fact that the Defendant and E sent the Chapter 1,384 (hereinafter “instant industrial finance bonds”) to C, in the name of the president of the Korea Development Bank, which was forged in order to make the victim aware of the facts charged, was sufficiently recognized. Ultimately, the Defendant’s act of issuing the instant industrial finance bonds itself, and the Defendant’s act of issuing the bonds, thereby constituting a crime of attempted securities ( even though C was aware that the industrial finance bonds of this case were forged, the Defendant and E was aware of the fact that the

However, the relationship between the defendant and C is examined.