All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, around November 2014, Defendant A1’s exercise of securities (criminal facts as indicated in the lower judgment), the Defendant merely delivered the instant valuable securities to Defendant B by requesting the confirmation of the forgery of the instant valuable securities (industrial finance bonds, which are State bonds) and was unaware of the fact that the said valuable securities were forged, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute a crime of conspiracy of securities.

B) On June 30, 2015, with regard to the exercise of securities (crimes 1.b. as indicated in the judgment below), the Defendant suspected of the charge that the instant oil was forged at the time, but was arrested and attempted by a diving police officer during the process of issuing the instant oil to Defendant B.

Therefore, it can not be said that there is a possibility of deception in the crime of deception of forged securities.

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

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B1”) told L to the effect that the instant oil was 3,000 heading 3,00 heading and told L, “I waiting to go back to the stuff until her return,” and was arrested on the police officer, and thus, the forged oil was “exercise” of the securities.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the imprisonment of eight months and the suspension of execution of two years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A1’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court (i.e.,, the other party G who requested the confirmation of the authenticity of the instant suspected securities around May 2014, which was the other party G, the Defendant, who was the other party to whom requested the confirmation of the authenticity of the instant suspected securities, stated that “at the time, the instant suspected securities have been forged, and that it would be distributed during the time,

(2) The defendant shall be entitled to make a statement.