[부정수표단속법위반][공2005.11.1.(237),1738]
Whether a fine may be imposed concurrently where the amount of a check is forged (negative)
Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that "a person who forges or alters a check shall be punished by imprisonment for a fixed term of not less than one year and by a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the check". If the amount of the check is forged in blank and the amount of the check is not supplemented yet, the amount of the check, which serves as the basis for determining the upper limit of the amount of the fine, shall not be determined concurrently, and thus, a fine shall not be imposed concurrently. Even if the amount of the check is granted to the person who forged the check while delivering the forged check, even though the amount of the check is not known as much until the amount of the check is supplemented actually, the amount of the check shall not be determined and the limit of the supplementary right shall not be imposed concurrently on the basis of the amount of the check.
Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act
Defendant
Prosecutor
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005No972 Decided May 18, 2005
The appeal is dismissed.
Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that "any person who forges or alters a check shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a term of not less than one year and by a fine not exceeding ten times the amount of the check". If the check is forged with blank and the amount of the check is not supplemented yet, the amount of the check, which serves as the basis for determining the upper limit of the amount of the fine, shall not be determined concurrently, and therefore, the fine shall not be imposed concurrently.
The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the check amount under Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act.
In addition, even if a person who forged a check, the amount of which is a blank check, grants a supplementary right while delivering the check, it is difficult to determine the amount of the check until the amount of the check is actually supplemented, and thus, the maximum amount of the supplementary right cannot be deemed as the amount of the check and thus the fine cannot be imposed concurrently. The argument in the grounds of appeal based on different opinions cannot be accepted. The Supreme Court decision cited by the prosecutor in the grounds of appeal is inconsistent with the purport of the case, and thus, cannot be a proper precedent in this case.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)