부정수표단속법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The right to fill the blank note issued in blank will run from the time when it can exercise its right to fill the blank, and in the event that a promissory note with a blank maturity for the continuous payment of obligations arising from the continuous sale of goods in the future is issued as in this case, the extinctive prescription of the right to fill the blank runs from the time when it is legally possible to exercise its right to fill the blank (Supreme Court Decision 96Da25050 delivered on May 28, 1997). In this case, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the fact that C (hereinafter “C”) after September 20, 201, which was the date of delivery of the check in this case, continued a transaction until March 20, 2012, and thus, C (hereinafter “KCC”) exercised its right to fill the blank, and thus, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the extinctive prescription of the right to fill the blank on May 10, 2012.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is C’s representative director, who entered into a check contract with one bank temporarily located in the name of C on September 7, 2007 and entered into a check contract with one bank on September 7, 2007.
On September 201, the Defendant issued a check number, check number “E”, “one bank potential branch”, face value and one copy of the check number in the name of “C” (hereinafter “instant check number”) in order to continuously pay the above debt at the C office located on the 6th floor of the building in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Songpa-gu, Seoul, with the increase in the amount of credit debt continuously supplied by KCC. In order to continuously pay the above debt, the Defendant delegated KCC with the right to fill up blanks.
However, due to C's default on March 20, 2012.