If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On August 26, 2010, the Defendant entered into a household check contract with the Dong Office of the National Bank and was engaged in transactions of checks.

On May 30, 2012, the Defendant issued a one copy of the household check in the name of the Defendant as of June 30, 2012, which was issued on May 30, 2012 in the Daehan’s operation of Busan Dong-gu, the check number E and face value of five million won, and issued a payment proposal on July 2, 2012, which was within the payment proposal period, but the holder did not receive due to the suspension of transaction, from that time, until July 3, 2012, the Defendant issued the provisional coefficient list Nos. 6 through 8 and 3 times in total, but did not receive due to the suspension of transaction.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each accusation book and defaulted copy of check;

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

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The dismissal of public prosecution under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. On May 30, 2012, the summary of the facts charged issued one copy of the household check in the Defendant’s name, which was issued on June 30, 2012 at the date when the check number F or face value 5 million won was issued, and issued on July 2, 2012 at the time when the holder presented a payment proposal on July 2, 2012, which was within the period when the payment was made by the holder, but did not receive due to the suspension of transaction, and issued the provisional coefficient list on five occasions in the attached list Nos. 1 through 5 and the total amount of five times, but all were not paid due to the suspension of transaction.

2. According to the records, since the defendant can recognize the fact that he recovered each of the above coefficient marks after the prosecution of this case, the prosecution against this part is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.