(b) The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the representative director knew or predicted the occurrence of the result of default check in the corporate form; and

B. The case holding that even if the defendant entered into a contract for current account transaction as the representative director in the form of a company, if the actual representative of the company issued the check using the official seal of the representative director who was in custody of the defendant while carrying out all businesses independently, but the defendant was not aware of the fact that the check was issued due to the absence of any participation in the management of the company, and was not aware of the financial status of the company at all, it cannot be deemed that the fact that the check was not paid on the date of presentation or foreseeable.

The crime of violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is an intentional crime established when the check is issued despite the awareness or foreseeable possibility of the occurrence of the result that the check will not be paid on the presentation date due to the shortage of deposits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Do115, Mar. 24, 1981; 79Do1334, Dec. 11, 1979).

The court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant was appointed as the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation upon the request of the non-indicted 1 and opened a political party under the name of the defendant. However, although the above company was actually the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, the defendant did not participate in all business operations independently, and the defendant did not know about the financial situation of the company. In particular, even though high blood pressure which is a branch soldier went back on June 192, 192, which caused the non-indicted 1 to resign from the office of the representative director and even though several demands were made, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not have any errors in the law regarding the issuance of the check at the time of issuance of the check, since it did not know that there was no possibility that the check was issued in violation of the above legal principles and the ruling of the court below that there was no possibility for the defendant to know that the check was issued at the time of issuance of the check.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)