According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in order to establish an offense under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, the check must be presented within the lawful period of presentation, and when payment is presented without filling the original amount, it cannot be confirmed whether the check is presented within the period of presentation. Thus, the above check cannot be viewed as a check falling under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, and on the premise that the original copy of the check of this case (No. 1) shall not be deemed as the check of this case, and it cannot be determined that there was a statement of the date of issuance at the time of presentation of the check without stating the date of issuance. According to the copy of the check of this case which is bound on No. 3 of the investigation record No. 6 of the check, the issue date of the check of this case shall be deemed as December 2, 192, but it is difficult to recognize that the above original copy was a copy of the check of this case's issuance date after the date of issuance of the check of this case, and it is difficult to recognize that it constitutes a bill of this case's issuance date.

However, according to the records, when examining the above accusation statement (No. 3 of the Investigation Record), the previous accusation statement (No. 3 of the Investigation Record No. 5 of the Investigation Record), and the copy of the above statement of the number of units, the above accusation statement was received to the port police station on December 3, 1992. The contents of the check of this case, which is the publishing date, was presented to pay on December 3, 1992, but the check of this case was processed in default on the grounds of suspension of transaction, and the document evidencing the same contents as the above accusation statement and the copy of the above statement of the number of units as stated in the statement of the previous accusation, which are the employees in charge of the party checking the same contents as the above accusation statement, are attached. According to the above evidence, it is sufficient to view that the issue date on the check was stated as December 2 of the same year at the time of December 3, 192.

Therefore, the court below did not reach the conclusion that the evidence of the facts charged of this case is insufficient for the reasons as stated in the above decision, without examining only the above Kim Jong-gil, which was stated by the police that it was difficult to present the date of issuance at the time when the check was presented to the bank, and the above statement that was presented for payment on the day following the above date of issuance, which was rejected, by examining only the previous statement in which the payment was presented for payment, and whether the date of issuance should be deleted, and the date and circumstances should be deleted. The court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)