If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On September 21, 2007, when the Defendant entered into a check contract with the official branch of the National Bank from around May 21, 2007 and traded the check number table, the Defendant issued one copy of the check number per bank (number E, date of issuance: December 10, 201) at the D office located in the Seocho-gu, Daegu-gu, would be 15,000,000 face value, and issued one copy of the check number per bank (the check number: E, date of issuance: December 10, 201), which is within the time limit for presentment for payment, and the check holder presented the check payment to the above bank on December 12, 201, but was not paid as a disposition of suspension for transaction.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of a charge, check copy, or statute;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 2 (2) and (1) of the same Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The dismissal of prosecution under Article 6 of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act, Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. From May 21, 2007, the Defendant: (a) from around July 15, 201, entered into a check contract with a Korean bank’s official branch; (b) around July 15, 201, at G’s house located in Seogu Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, issued one sheet of the number of shares of the said bank (number B: B; date of issuance: December 15, 201) with a face value of 15,00,000; and (c) the holder, on December 15, 201, paid the said check to the said bank on December 15, 201, which is within the time limit for presentment for payment, the Defendant failed to receive it as a disposition of transaction politics.

2. The facts charged in this part of the judgment are cases where a person who issues or prepares a check pursuant to Article 2(2) and (4) of the Illegal Check Control Act falls under Article 2(2) and (1) of the same Act and collects the check, and the defendant cannot institute a public prosecution. The records show that the above check was recovered after the prosecution of this case. Thus, this part of the public prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag.