Of the facts charged in this case, each of the checks listed in the separate sheet I is not guilty.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

A. Defendant

(1) A check listed in No. 1 in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the check of this case”) is not corrected by the date of issuance within the period of presentment for payment of the check.

(2) The attached table I Nos. 2 (hereinafter “the attached table No. 2”) is not corrected by the date of issue during the period of presentment for payment of the check, and even if the date of issue was corrected within the period of presentment for payment for domestic affairs, even if the date of issue was corrected within the period of presentation for payment, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act since the date of issuance

(3) The attached check No. 3 (hereinafter “instant third check”) and No. 4 (hereinafter “instant fourth check”) are not issued by the Defendant while in office as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 2, but issued by Nonindicted Co. 1, who was appointed as the successor representative director of the Defendant, stating the Defendant as the representative director.

(4) Even if the defendant, while in office as the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation, issued the instant checks, if the issue date of the checks was corrected after the non-indicted 1 was appointed as the representative director, it shall be deemed to be the issuance of a new check. Therefore, the defendant shall not be held liable for violation of the Illegal Check Control Act.

(b) Prosecutors;

(1) The separate check Nos. 4 in the separate sheet Nos. 2 shall be deemed to have issued a new check that is different from the existing check, inasmuch as not only the date of publication on November 6, 2001, the date of publication indicated in the facts charged, but also the correction of face value

(2) There is sufficient evidence to prove that the checks listed in Appendix II Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 8 are corrected by the date of issuance of each check at the time of the issuance of the check.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. Part on the second check of this case

(1) Summary of the facts charged

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around June 9, 1999, the Defendant issued one copy of the check number Ma or 5019431, par value 50,000,000, and date of issuance under the name of the representative director of the non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. on November 9, 199; and (b) on November 9, 1999, the Defendant corrected only the date of publication as of November 9, 199 without stating the year of publication; and (c) the holder issued the bill by exercising the supplementary right on October 21, 2002, stating the year of publication as 200 years, and presented a payment proposal within the time limit, but no payment was made due to the suspension of transaction."

(2) Determination:

Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that when a check is issued by the person who issued the check and fails to pay it on the date for presentation due to a lack of deposit or a disposition of suspension of transaction after issuing the check, the issuance of the check shall be deemed to constitute an illegal check. Meanwhile, Article 2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the date of presentment" means the date when a check is presented under Article 28 (2) of the Check Act and the date when a check is presented for payment to a financial institution within the period of presentment for payment under Article 29 of the Check Act. Thus, the illegal check under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act requires that the check is presented within the period of presentment for payment under the Check Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3099, Sept. 5, 2003). Thus, even if the date of lawful issuance is corrected under the understanding of the holder of the check, the correction act shall be made within the period of presentment for payment under the above Act and the check shall not be made within the period of correction.

In light of the above facts charged, it is difficult for the Defendant to reverse the above 10-day statement and the 19-day statement to the effect that the non-indicted 1 was corrected as stated in the facts charged on November 9, 199, the 196-day statement and the 9-day statement to the effect that the non-indicted 3's last holder of the above 9-day statement was not recorded on the 9-day statement and the 9-day statement to the 9-day statement to the effect that the non-indicted 1 was not recorded on the 9-day statement to the effect that the non-indicted 3 was not recorded on the 9-day statement and the 9-day statement to the effect that the non-indicted 9-day statement was not recorded on the 9-day statement to the court below, and that the non-indicted 1, the 9-day statement to the court below was also recorded on the 9-day statement to the effect that the non-indicted 3's new statement was made on the 9-day statement.

B. Part 1, 3, and 4 of the instant check

(1) Summary of the facts charged

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the defendant issued 20.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 20 2.0 20 2.0 20 20 . 20 20 . 20 20 . 20 20 . 20 20 . 20 20 20 . 20 21 20 20 . 21 20 . 3 20 . 3 1 20 . 20 . 3 20 . 20 . 20 . 3 20 . 20 . 3 1 20 . 3 20 . 20 . 3 1 20 . 3 20 . 20 . 3 20 . 3 3 ,00 . 21 20

(2) Determination:

(A) Whether the defendant was issued while he was in office as the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation

According to evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the non-indicted 2 corporation is acknowledged that the defendant was working as the representative director, and the previous auditor was registered as the representative director in the corporate register from January 4, 2002 by the resolution of the board of directors, and actually operated the company independently, and the defendant was only performing his existing obligation and urgent financial assistance from March 2002 until March 2002, and the contact was cut thereafter.

Based on the above facts of recognition, the defendant's statement Nos. 3 and 4 was divided into 1 and 20,000 won at the time of the issuance of the checks to 20,000 won, 1 to 20,000 won, 20,000 won, and 1 to 20,000 won (the first statement at the prosecution and the court below after May 21, 2003, the first statement at the prosecution and the first statement at the court below 4,000, 1 to 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 1 to 30,000 won, 1 to 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 1 to 20,000 won, 20,000 won, 1 to 30,000 won, 20,000 won, 1 to 30,000 won, and 1 to 20,000.

(B) Whether the issue date of the instant 1, 3, and 4 checks ought to be deemed as the issuance of a check

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the first check of this case was issued on March 21, 2001 by the defendant and continued to be corrected on and around the date of issue of the check. Since the non-indicted 1 worked as the representative director, the correction was made on August 21, 2002 and November 21, 2002 around the date of issue of the check. The third and fourth checks of this case also were corrected on November 22, 2002 around the date of issue of each of the non-indicted 1's checks. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17574, Jun. 22, 2002; Presidential Decree No. 17780, Sep. 22, 2002; Presidential Decree No. 17817, Nov. 22, 2002>

In full view of Articles 2(2) and 3(1) of the Illegal Check Control Act, if the representative director of a corporation has predicted and predicted the occurrence of the result that the representative director will not be paid on the fixed date for presentation due to a shortage of deposits, etc., the crime of violating Article 2(2) of the above Act shall be established against the representative director of the corporation. In full view of Articles 1, 2(1), and 50 of the Check Act, since the issuance date is valid for the check, it is essential to state the date of issuance in order to determine whether the term of presentation is complied with. In a case where the contents of the check are modified, it is improper to state the fact that the new representative director is liable for the violation of Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act by deeming that the new representative director was not paid on the fixed date for the issuance of the check under the name of the previous representative director of the corporation and that the new representative director was paid on the expiration date for the issuance of the check to the new representative director under the understanding that the new issuance date will not be paid on the new issue date.

In the instant case, according to the above facts of recognition, the first, third, and fourth checks of this case (However, although the checks of this case Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be deemed to have been issued at the time when the defendant works as the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation, as seen earlier, it is judged that the defendant was issued at the time when the defendant works as the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, the non-indicted 1, the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation, and the non-indicted 1, the new representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation, was lawfully corrected from June 22, 2002 and August 21, 2002, but the payment was refused, in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable that the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, the defendant, and the non-indicted 4

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, each check of the facts charged found guilty by the court below is issued at the time when the defendant works as the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation, or there is no evidence to acknowledge that the issue date of the check was legally corrected (the second check) within the lawful period of payment proposal of the check. Furthermore, with respect to the first, third, and fourth checks of this case, the defendant did not constitute a violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act due to the correction of the issue date of each check of the non-indicted 1, the representative director of the newly appointed representative director after issuing the check at the time when the defendant works as the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Articles 3 (1) and 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act and thereby finding the defendant guilty all of the facts charged. Thus, the defense of the defense counsel's appeal

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

(a) A check listed in Appendix II No. 4;

The issuance of a check as provided for in the Illegal Check Control Act refers to the act of preparing the basic requirements for the check and delivering it to the other party, and the act of ex post facto correction of the words that legally issued checks are different from the act of issuing a check under the understanding of the holder of the check, and such act of ex post correction cannot be viewed as the act of issuing a check as provided for in the Illegal Check Control Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6631, Jun. 11, 2004). In light of the above part of the facts charged, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant prepared and delivered the basic requirements for the above check to the above 0th day of November 6, 201, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above 10th day of issuance is 00 won for the above 20th day after the above 20th day of issuance, 20th day of issuance, 30th day of issuance, and 10th day of issuance, 200 copies of the check.

(b) A check listed in Appendix II Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 8;

(1) Part of the attached check Nos. 1 to 3, 6, and 8

In light of the fact that each of the above orders issued by the non-indicted 1 was corrected within the period of lawful presentation for payment, which is the date as of the date of issuance of each of the above orders, as in this part of the facts charged, the non-indicted 1's statement in the court below's 4, 7, 8 of the non-indicted 1's statement in the non-indicted 5, 7, 8, and 1 of the non-indicted 1's statement in the non-indicted 1's prosecutor's examination protocol 5, and the non-indicted 1's statement in the non-indicted 3's statement in the non-indicted 9, 7, 5, and 8's statement in the non-indicted 1's statement in the non-indicted 2's statement that the non-indicted 1's statement in the non-indicted 2's statement in the non-indicted 3's statement that the non-indicted 1's statement in the above order was issued within the same 20th day of each month.

(2) Attached Table II No. 5

Examining the issue date of the check as of February 4, 2002 as of December 4, 2002, the correction was made as of December 4, 2002, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to each of the statements made at the court below of the court below by Nonindicted 15, the statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 15, the statement made by the prosecutor, the accusation and the copy of the check (in the investigation record 7 book 216 pages), the statement made by the defense counsel as to the number of units (in the evidence No. 24-2), each of the above statements submitted by the prosecutor during the corrective period from February 4, 202 to April 4, 2002, from April 4, 2002 to June 4, 2002 to June 4, 2002 to August 24, 2002 to the extent that there is no evidence otherwise recognized by the prosecutor as being submitted within each of the above corrective period from June 4, 20020 to August 24, 2004.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted each of the checks listed in Nos. 4 of the separate sheet Nos. 4 on the ground that there is no proof of the date and time of crime regarding the issuance of the checks, or that there is no evidence to prove that each check listed in Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 8 of the separate sheet No. 4 was lawfully corrected

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the prosecutor shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Check]

Judges Park Jae-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ho

Judges Lee Ho-ho and Childbirth Leave unable to sign and affix seals;