A. The court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case even though the defendant did not directly issue each of the charges of this case, and did not publicly invite the issuance of each of the units of this case with the needy person and each of the charges of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of violation of Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established when an issuer issues a check, predicting the occurrence of the outcome that the check will not be paid on the date for presentation due to the shortage of deposits, etc., and such prediction does not affect even if it is not possible, or the circumstances leading up to the issuance of a check or the suspension of payment, etc., which led to the issuance of the check, cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of issuance of illegal checks solely on the basis of the fact that the issuer does not anticipate the occurrence of such outcome or there are special circumstances that the check would not be presented on the date for presentation. However, in exceptional cases where the issuer believed that such belief is legitimate, it can be exempted from the liability for the crime of issuance of illegal checks (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6490, Sept. 30, 201).