1. As the contractor guaranteed the payment of the check, the Defendant’s assertion that the check is not liable for the issuance of the check is established when the issuer of the check predicted that the check will not be paid on the date for presentation due to the shortage of deposit, etc., and issued the check, the offense of violation of Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established. The prediction is not necessary on the fixed date, and is sufficient, and the check is not exempted from liability solely on the ground that there are internal reasons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do1862, Dec. 24, 1985; 201Do7185, Dec. 26, 2013). The lower court, as the actual representative of D Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant presented the check number 1,670,000 per share (F) and the Defendant presented the check number 1,000,000 won per deposit and the check number 1,013.

Even if dolusent intention is recognized, it was determined that it constitutes a crime under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the responsibility to issue a check, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On August 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) prepared and submitted to the court a written application for punishment that the Defendant does not want punishment against the Defendant as the first recipient of the check, which caused a set of KRW 50,000,00 in face value to August 10, 2015, with respect to the assertion that the holder did not want punishment; (b) however, the lower court did not prosecute the part of the facts charged in the instant case regarding the check.