1. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The blank check shall be held liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act within the scope of the scope of the right of supplement, at least when the blank check is wrongfully supplemented. The issuer of the blank check shall be held liable for the violation of the illegal Check Control Act. However, the amount exceeding the right of supplement shall not be the same as the amount supplemented by the issuer. Thus, the issuer shall not be held liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act until the amount exceeding the right of supplement is charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2464, Sept. 29, 195; 98Do180, Mar. 10, 1998; 201Do7185, Dec. 26, 2013). (b) The lower court reversed the judgment of the Defendant, a representative director of the company, on the ground that the amount exceeding the right of supplement exceeds the limit of KRW 500,000,000,000,000 for the check and the amount exceeding the limit of the charges in question.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of

2. As to the grounds for appeal by the defendant

(a) Payment of money equivalent to par value of a check;

Even if so, it does not constitute “a case where a person who issued a check collects the check” as provided by Article 2(4) of the Illegal Check Control Act for the reason that the prosecution cannot be instituted (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da1440, Oct. 21, 1994).