부정수표단속법위반
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant B is reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
except that this shall not apply.
1. Of the facts charged in this case against the Defendants, the lower court convicted the Defendants of violating the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to each of the check units Nos. 6, 10 through 12 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, among the facts charged against Defendant A, as to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to each of the check units Nos. 1 through 5, 7, and 9 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and as to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to the check units Nos. 1 through 5, 7, and 9 of the check number No. 9 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, among the facts charged against Defendant B, as to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to
As to the acquittal portion of Defendant A, Defendant B filed an appeal against the guilty portion, and the prosecutor and the Defendants did not separately file an appeal against the dismissed portion.
Therefore, since the part of the judgment of the court below on the dismissal of the public prosecution against the Defendants is separately confirmed, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the acquittal part of Defendant A and Defendant B.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) with labor for the convicted portion of Defendant B (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts about the acquittal portion of the defendant A)'s intention on the part of the check by the defendant A is recognized.
Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding the court below's decision that acquitted Defendant A.
3. Determination
A. The lower court’s determination on the Prosecutor’s assertion against Defendant A (1) is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, in light of the following legal principles and circumstances, is insufficient to deem that the facts charged were proven without any reasonable doubt, and on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, acquitted Defendant A on the ground that the crime of violating Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is not paid on the date of presentation due to the shortage of deposits.