However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

From April 5, 2006, the Defendant entered into a check contract in the name of the new bank branch and the Defendant, and has traded over the check.

On November 20, 2015, the Defendant issued a one copy of the check of the said bank under the name of the Defendant, which was named as “D” office in the Defendant’s management in Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, and the fifth floor, as “E”, “40,000,000”, and “date of issuance”.

On May 2, 2016, the Defendant did not receive a disposition of suspension of transaction even though the said check was presented to the above bank around May 2, 2016, which was within the period of presentation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

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

1. Although the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is equivalent to the face value of the non-specified check for the reason of sentencing (the conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing as set forth below), the following sentence is determined by comprehensively taking account of all the conditions of the sentencing indicated in the record, such as the defendant’s age, occupation, sex, environment, circumstance leading up to the instant crime, motive, circumstance before and after the instant crime, etc., and the fact that the defendant has no record of being punished in excess of the fine, such as recovering the four copies of the check equivalent to 150 million won per face value after the prosecution was instituted.

Rejection of Public Prosecution

1. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant entered into a check contract from April 5, 2006 to a new bank and its branch office and the Defendant, respectively, under the name of the new bank and the Defendant, and traded the check.

On November 30, 2015, the Defendant issued one copy of the check per bank account in the name of the Defendant, “D” office operated by the Defendant, “B”, “50,000,000,” and “date of issuance” under the name of the Defendant, which became the following: (a) around November 30, 2015, the Defendant issued one check per bank account in the name of the Defendant.

On May 31, 2016, the Defendant presented the check to the above bank during the period of presentation.