According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the check of this case issued by the defendant as the representative member of the non-indicted 1 Limited Partnership was issued as an installment payment in purchasing the new car in a long-term installment, and that each of the above checks was settled in default because the non-indicted 2, who succeeded to the status of the above representative member from the defendant, was useful for the installment payment that he received from the above representative member. Since each of the above checks is to be paid by the parties, it does not include a considerable amount of deposit in advance at the time of the issuance of the above check, and even if the above deposit is not made, the payment of the above checks was to be secured by the vehicle body of the automobile purchased at the time of the above check, and the use of the above installment payment by the non-indicted 2 was not expected by anyone, and therefore, it could not be predicted that it was not paid on the date of presentation due to the lack of deposit at the time of the above issuance of the check, and therefore, it cannot be determined that the defendant was not guilty on the ground that there was no unlawful issuance of the check.

However, the crime of violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established when the issuer issues a check, predicting the fact that the check will not be paid on the date of presentation due to the shortage of deposits, etc., so if the check was issued without any measures to secure the deposit amount or the current account for the payment of the check, it constitutes the above crime. Therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle body purchased in the same part as the original judgment, or the taxi commission paid by the borrower, as a matter of course, naturally issued by the defendant, is a liability for securing the payment of the check amount. According to the records, there is no circumstance to see that the defendant did not have a considerable deposit in the amount of the check at the time of issuing the check, and there is no specific obligation to secure the current account for the payment of the check amount, and that the defendant issued it with the knowledge that it would result in the shortage of deposits when the check was presented for payment.

The judgment of the court below that the defendant did not have any criminal intent to the crime of this case merely for the reasons stated in its holding shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the Illegal Check Control Act or misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence.

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

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)