[특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반{사기(인정된 죄명 : 사기)}][공1998.3.15.(54),822]
Whether fraud can be punished in relation to the issuer’s relationship with the final holder in a case where the so-called breabbbbbing note, etc. was previously distributed (negative)
If the drawer of a bill or check has issued it even though it was anticipated that it will not be settled at the due date, and the discount or the purchase of goods by deceiving the opposite contractual party, the act of fraud by the drawer is completed thereby. Even if the opposite contractual party transferred the bill or check to another party and the last holder presented the bill or check for payment at the due date, barring special circumstances, the drawer's act cannot be viewed as fraud in relation to the last holder.
Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act
Supreme Court Decision 81Do2605 Decided December 22, 1981 (Gong1982, 232) Supreme Court Decision 89Do2542 Decided February 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 837) Supreme Court Decision 97Do1706 Decided September 12, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 3215)
Defendant
Prosecutor and Defendant
Attorney Jung-jin
Busan High Court Decision 97No529 delivered on November 6, 1997
All appeals are dismissed.
1. First, we examine the defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal.
Examining the evidence relations selected by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just and correct to recognize the criminal facts that the defendant acquired the discounted amount or goods by means of discounting promissory notes or paying the goods price in collusion with the non-indicted in collusion with the non-indicted person, etc., and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence in the process.
The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
2. Next, the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal are examined.
If the drawer of a bill or check has issued it even though it was anticipated that it will not be settled at the due date, and the discount or the purchase of goods by deceiving the opposite contractual party, the act of fraud by the drawer is completed thereby. Even if the opposite contractual party transferred the bill or check to another party and the last holder presented the bill or check at the due date, barring any special circumstance, the drawer's act in relation to the last holder cannot be viewed as fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Do2605, Dec. 22, 1981; 89Do2542, Feb. 27, 1990).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the bill of this case and the bill of this case, the bill of this case, the bill of this case, the bill of this case attached to the crime log of the court of first instance, excluding the bill of this case, the bill of this case, the bill of this case, and the bill of this case, the bill of this case, the bill of this case, the bill of this case, and the bill of this case, the bill of this case, the bill of this case, are not the direct counter-party of the defendant, but the last holder acquired after the bill of this case, the bill of this case, the check of this case, the bill of this case, the bill of this case, and the bill of this case, the bill of this case, the bill of this case, the bill of this case, and the bill of this case, the bill of this case, and the bill of this case, the bill of this case, the bill of this case, and the bill of this case, the bill of this case, the bill of this case, and the bill of this case were delivered with the parties.
The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)