The court below found that the defendant's act of using the aforesaid blank note 10,000 won and less than 50,000 won was 60,000 won for the purpose of securing all damages due to the reasons attributable to the non-indicted company which is the contractor, and issued and delivered a supplementary note 140,000 won by paying the amount corresponding to the above losses. But the complainant, while conducting the above installation work, he did not reach the design capacity of the above underground room and omitted part of the water tank. Further, the defendant's act of using the above blank note 160,000 won and less than 160,000 won was 60,000 won which was 60,000 won less than 160,000 won which was 60,000 won which was 60,000 won more than 106,000 won which was 60,000 won more than 160,000 won of the above construction work, and it did not reach the extent of 106,06,00.

In order to supplement the requirements of the bill after the date, if a purchaser of a blank bill makes up for the blank bill more than the limit of the supplement right determined by an agreement with the issuer, it constitutes the issuance of a new promissory note using the existing promissory note with the issuer’s signature and seal. Therefore, the abuse of the supplementary right constitutes a crime of forging securities (see Supreme Court Decision 72Do897, Jun. 13, 1972). Furthermore, the act of inducing the other party to deliver money for discount items by presenting it to the other party as if it is a duly supplemented promissory note, constitutes a crime of uttering of forged securities and a crime of fraud.

However, it is difficult for the defendant to unilaterally conclude that he had no specific amount of money and there was no special dispute over the method of exercising the right to supplement the above-mentioned construction work, as stated in this case. It cannot be readily concluded that he had abused the right to supplement the above-mentioned construction work or there was an intention to commit such act. The records of the court below are as follows: (a) The defendant, despite his own use of the right to supplement the above-mentioned construction work by 60,00 won for the reasons for the non-indicted 1 and 670,000 won for the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 50,000 won for the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 6,000 won for the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2's use of the right to supplement the construction work (the non-indicted 96,106, for the non-indicted 1 and 500,000 won for the non-indicted 1 and 606,06,00.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the face value of the bill of this case exceeded the extent of its supplementary right and the defendant's intent to commit a crime against abuse of the right to supplement the blank bill is constituted of the crime of forging the securities, the crime of uttering of the right to supplement the blank bill, and the crime of fraud under the premise that the court below committed a crime against the abuse of the right to supplement the blank bill. It did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the criminal intent of abuse of the right to supplement the blank bill,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)