특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(산림)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years and by a fine of three thousand won (three million won).
The defendant above.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts by the prosecutor (in violation of the Illegal Check Control Act) did not correct the issue date of the lawfully issued check to K under the understanding of K, but rather issued the check by newly stating the issue date on the existing check form in which the Defendant recovered and delivered it. It constitutes a new issuance of the check on December 29, 2011.
B. The Defendant’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. On October 28, 1994, the Defendant entered into a check contract with the Yangyang-gun Branch of the Nonghyup National Agricultural Cooperative and received a disposition of suspension of transaction on November 3, 2010, among the transactions in the check number table.
Nevertheless, on December 29, 201, the Defendant issued one copy of the check number per unit (hereinafter “the check in this case”) under the name of the Defendant, which was named as “I”, “20,000,000 won”, “the date of issuance,” and “the date of issuance, February 10, 2012,” which was established by Article 134-4 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (Act No. 10522, Mar. 2, 2012, which was amended on March 31, 201) (hereinafter “the check in this case”).
B. The judgment of the court below is that the date when the defendant issued the check of this case was entered as of February 10, 2010 and delivered to a third party as of February 10, 2010, and the collection and delivery of the date of issuance after correcting the date of issuance to K on February 10, 2012 under the recognition of K does not constitute the issuing act of the check. The defendant's receipt of the disposition of transaction suspension after November 3, 2010 is that of the date when the check of this case was issued, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was subject to the disposition of transaction suspension prior to that date. Thus, the defendant cannot be said to have received the disposition of transaction suspension after receiving the disposition of transaction suspension.