A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

A. As to the judgment of the second instance court of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles, the extinctive prescription for the claim for the check has expired because the check holder failed to claim the check within the period of prescription, and in such a case, it shall be deemed that the check holder implicitly expressed his/her intent not to punish the issuer. Therefore, the public prosecution against

In addition, the check Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 issued a list of crimes in the judgment of the court of the second instance, and the check Nos. 4 is the fact that the defendant endorseds the defendant, and the defendant cannot be deemed the issuer of the check. The statement that the defendant issued five copies of the check in the judgment of the court of the second instance is not reliable. The statement that the defendant issued five copies of the check in the judgment of the court of the second instance is not reliable, and Qu withdraws collected the case in the judgment of the court of the first instance that "2012 high-

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, and convicted the Defendant.

(A) According to the records, on November 6, 2014 and May 21, 2015, the Defendant’s public defender appealed against the lower judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and filed each statement of grounds for appeal, and concluded the proceedings following the examination of evidence. The Defendant appointed a private defense counsel on August 17, 2015, which was the date the pleadings were resumed. On October 19, 2015, the Defendant made a statement of the summary of the pleadings as of October 19, 2015, which contained the same purport, by asserting that the Defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the date of the 8th trial of the lower court on October 19, 2015. According to this, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is obviously illegal and thus, it is ex officio examined).

When the business of the defendant does not run properly, each of the crimes in this case is caused, the defendant made efforts to pay damages, and the crime of issuing checks on default is committed.