부정수표단속법위반
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) of this case’s right to supplement blank check 2 to H is limited to a specific debt of KRW 450 million borne by Company E against H, but the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that H has the right to supplement blank check above the amount stated on the pertinent check, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
In addition, the defendant had already repaid KRW 450 million, which is the scope of the right to supplement the above blank, to H during the trial of the court below, and even though the judgment of the court below had to evaluate the same as the "collection of checks" under the Illegal Check Control Act, it was necessary to assess the same as the "collection of checks" under the illegal Check Control Act and to render a judgment dismissing the public prosecution, it was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles.
Even if it is impossible to evaluate performance within the blank range of the right to supplement the check in the same way as the recovery of the check, the judgment of innocence should be rendered on the part exceeding the blank range.
2. Determination
A. In the event that the blank check amount is unfairly supplemented, at least within the scope of the supplement right, the issuer of the blank check is liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act within the scope of the supplement right. However, the amount exceeding the supplement right cannot be the same as the amount supplemented by the issuer. Thus, the issuer cannot be held liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act even with respect to the amount exceeding the supplement right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7185, Dec. 26, 2013). (b) The fact of recognition is recognized based on the evidence and the records duly adopted and examined by the court below.
1) From January 2010, the Defendant continued to engage in the business of borrowing and repaying the Company’s operating funds to H from around January 201.
2) The Defendant himself/herself runs on April 27, 2011.