In addition, in full view of the testimony of the witness H of the lower court, the fact that the Defendant issued the party shares can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charges on different premise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Chang-dong Branch of the C Bank on March 17, 2014 and entered into a party share sheet with the actual representative director of the B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and traded the party share sheet.

On March 13, 2015, the Defendant issued one check number “F”, “58,570,000 won”, “B’s check number per share of C Bank in the name of C Bank on September 22, 2015, and presented a check number to C Bank on September 1, 2015, for which the check date was within the period of presentment for payment, and the Defendant failed to pay the shortage of deposits.

B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that, even if comprehensively taking account of all the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original trial, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant issued the check of shares as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C. 1) Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (in the case of each police interrogation protocol againstG, 1) G has conflicting interests with the defendant, such as being investigated as an issuer of the initial party number table, 2) H directly requested extension of the payment period of the party number table in the court of the court below, 2) having the corporate seal, and visiting C bank Sosan Branch with himself to conduct the extension of the payment period.