A shall be punished by a fine of 50,000 won, by a fine of 2,50,000 won, and by a fine of 2,50,000 won.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Defendant

A is the representative in the name of (State) in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E, Defendant B is the actual operator of the F, Defendants entered into a check contract in the name of the FF branch and Defendant A from October 12, 2010 and entered into a check contract in the name of the FF branch and Defendant A from October 12, 2010.

Defendants jointly issued one copy of the check number “G”, face value and date of issuance in the name of Defendant A, in blank, at around January 201, the Defendants issued a check number “G”, “G”, and “16,00,000” with the date of issuance as “5. 16,00” and “16,00,000” with the said check as the date of payment proposal. However, the Defendants presented the check within the period of payment proposal, but failed to pay for the shortage of deposits.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendants’ legal statements

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants and H

1. Application of each statute on a written accusation;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act applicable to the crimes, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act. Article 30 (Selection of Fine)

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 6 of the Illegal Check Control Act, Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant A was merely the representative in the name of the above company, and the Defendants transferred the business of the above company to H on January 12, 201, and delivered the above check in blank to H.

There is no conspiracy with H, etc. that the check will be suspended from payment due to the shortage of deposits.

2. The crime of violation of Article 2(2) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act is established when the issuer issues a check, predicted that the occurrence of the result that the crime of violation of the provision of Article 2(2) will not be paid on the date of presentation due to the shortage of deposits, etc., and the occurrence of the occurrence of the occurrence is established when the issuer issues the check, even if the prediction is not infinite, and there is no influence on the occurrence of the special agreement or the circumstance where the check was issued and

Supreme Court Decision 9 September 2010