Of the facts charged in this case, No. 14 of the annexed list of crimes.

From October 22, 1985, the defendant has entered into a contract with the National Bank Maambae branch and household check and party check check.

On December 194, the Defendant issued a check number E, face value 10 million won at D offices operated by the Defendant of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, and a check holder whose name is unknown by issuing a check number No. 1, a check number 1,00 million won under the name of the Defendant on March 1, 1995, the date of issuance of which was March 1, 1995 when the check holder presented a check payment proposal, but failed to pay for the shortage of deposits, and as indicated in the attached Table Nos. 1 through 13, 15, and 46, from that time until March 1995, the Defendant issued a check and a check of KRW 361,625,00 in total face value and a check of KRW 45 times from March 1, 1995, and each check holder presented a check payment proposal within the period of time but failed to receive deposits or suspension of transactions.

(Provided, That "10,00,000 won" in No. 11 of the attached list of crimes in the indictment is correct ex officio because it is obvious that "7,00,000 won" is a clerical error in the "365,625,000" and "364,425,000" in the investigation records of "7,20,000 won" and "7,000 won" in No. 28 of the investigation records of "11,00,000" and No. 22 of "7,20,000" and "364,25,000" are a clerical error in the "365,00,000.

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each accusation;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each copy of the current number of shares, and each household check;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act and the selection of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. In light of the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that aggravated concurrent crimes, the amount of the instant default check was larger, and was not recovered from damage at all, and the Defendant left China without taking follow-up measures after the Defendant’s default and without taking follow-up measures, making an escape life for more than 17 years, the sentence of sentence is inevitable.

However, the sentencing that is advantageous to the fact that the defendant is old and healthy.