However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On November 22, 1994, the Defendant was subject to the disposition of suspension of transaction on August 19, 2015, when it opened a current account at the net branch of the previous North Bank in the name of the said company and was engaged in transactions.

Nevertheless, at around 14:00 on June 24, 2016, the Defendant issued a check number I, face value I, 500 million won, 200 million won, 300 million won on July 30, 2016, and 1 copy of the check check in the name of the said company, which was named as “the check number I”, “50 million won”, “the date of payment”, and “the first place of the bank’s net position” in the name of the said company.

Accordingly, the defendant issued the check of the check after he was subject to the disposition of suspension of transaction from the financial institution.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement by the Prosecutor's Office to J (including K's statement);

1. Application of the unlawful statements, accusationss, and written statements to Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Illegal Check for Criminal Facts and Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Control of Illegal Check for Punishment (Selection of Imprisonment);

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstance among the following grounds for sentencing)

1. The summary of the argument is that at the time when G borrowed KRW 500 million from H, the Defendant offered the instant check to H as collateral. At the time, G has a reputation in the community, and M has a considerable amount of assets. L, in business transaction with G and G, and J issued the instant check under the trust that H would pay in full the amount borrowed from H prior to the day on which the payment of the instant check was presented. As such, the Defendant is not liable for the issuance of the instant check.

Even if the check of this case is liable for the issuance of the check of this case, the Defendant believed that the check of this case would not be presented, and as such, that the check of this case would not be presented.