1. From September 1978 to October of the same year, the judgment of the court below issued a check in the name of the defendant 1.30,00,000 won per November 30, 1978 and issued a check in the name of the defendant 785400, in the name of the defendant 1.30,000 won per year and presented 50,960,000 won per 50,000 won per each check to the bank on the date of presentation, and dismissed the defendant's appeal by maintaining the judgment of the court of the first instance, which committed the pro rata of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act.

2. The crime of violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established at the time of issuance of the check even though there is a perception or foreseeable possibility of the occurrence of the result that the check will not be paid on the date of presentation due to the shortage of deposit (see Supreme Court Decision 79Do1334, Dec. 11, 1979). The examination of a single record reveals that even after the issuance of the check, there is no perception that the check would be dishonor due to the shortage of deposit, or that it would be possible to expect it, there is no evidence to find that the defendant would be able to do so, or that the defendant would be able to do so. According to the change of the defendant, the check was issued by issuing the check as a transaction relation with the clothes for over 10 years and approved without any deviation. This case's check was due to a conversation in the free market that occurred on Nov. 27, 1978.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the issuance of illegal checks, thereby finding the facts without any evidence. Thus, the court below's judgment cannot be reversed on the ground that there is a ground for this issue.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)