부정수표단속법위반등
The conviction part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.
The scope of the court's adjudication
A. The first instance court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the Defendant’s violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to D/C checks and the fraud against victim E among the facts charged, dismissed the prosecution on the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to F/C checks, and sentenced the Defendant to one year of imprisonment with respect to the remainder of each fraud and compulsory execution.
As to the whole portion found guilty, since the defendant appealed to the part not guilty and the whole portion found guilty, the dismissal of prosecution as to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act on the check number F checks which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal is separately determined, and therefore, the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance is limited to the remaining portion except the above dismissal of prosecution.
B. Meanwhile, the first instance court dismissed the application for compensation filed by B and C, the applicant for compensation.
According to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, an applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation. Thus, the part rejecting the said application for compensation becomes immediately and conclusive and is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) On the part of the lower judgment, Defendant 1 did not have any intention to deception, only because the Defendant did not pay the land price due to the deterioration of business management (2017Sang376) with respect to the fraud of the victim of misunderstanding of facts against the lower judgment.
B) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. (2) The victim is well aware of the fact that the Defendant, by mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, provided an explanation about the source of loan to the victim, and used the loan as explained by the victim, and that the circumstances of the company at the time were difficult.