beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2014.02.18 2013고정624

부정수표단속법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 60,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a legal spouse of C's representative D, and is in charge of accounting affairs of the above corporation.

On January 28, 2002, the Defendant, in the name of the said legal entity, opened a check number G and a check account (E) with the Southern Sea Branch of the said legal entity on September 20, 2012. On September 20, 2012, the Defendant issued one copy of the check number G and one of the KRW KRW 1,000,000 at the par value of the date of issuance as the goods transport price at the C&C office in which he/she had his/her business affairs in the Namnam Sea-gun.

However, on December 21, 2012, when the H representative I, the holder of the said check, presented payment to the said bank, but did not receive any shortage of deposit.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness J;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (K Communications for Witnesses);

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 2 (2) and (1) of the same Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. On October 20, 2012, the Defendant issued one copy of the check number L at the CF office in the Namnam-gunF of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “CF”) and one copy of 3,000 won at the par value of January 16, 2013 on the date of issuance as packaging.

However, on January 16, 2013, which was the last holder of the said check, the representative N, a representative of M Co., Ltd., presented to the above bank during the period for presentation of payment, but did not pay upon termination of the check contract

2. In cases where the court has taken a preservative measure prohibiting repayment, etc. to the debtor pursuant to Article 43(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the payment bank of a check must refuse payment of the check on the basis of the above preservative measure, regardless of whether the check is a deposit. Therefore, if the check was presented after the above preservative measure against the drawer of the check, the payment of the check should be made.