If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

From October 30, 2001, the Defendant opened a set-off branch and a check account in the name of the Defendant, and traded checks.

On November 9, 2012, the Defendant issued one copy of the above bank bank bank bank bank bank bank bank check in the name of the Defendant, which was named as “D’s check number, “D’ on February 9, 2013,” “3,000,000 won on the date of issuance,” in the case of Defendant C (consumer store) operated by Defendant in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul.

On February 12, 2013, the holder of the check at issue presented the check payment to the Bank.

However, the Defendant issued 12 copies of the total household check as stated in the “crime Daybook” (excluding No. 3,8,100 once a year, but excluding 3,00,000 won in total due to the shortage of deposits) as stated in the attached Table, including that the Defendant did not receive deposits, but did not pay 36,000 won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each statute on a written accusation;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act and Article 2 (2) and (1) of the same Act and the selection of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Of the facts charged in this case, the Defendant issued each of the pertinent provisional coefficient plates Nos. 3, 8, and 10 on the list of crimes in the corresponding annexed Form Nos. 3, 8, and 10 to the actual date of issuance, but the Defendant prevented the Defendant from paying the shortage

2. The facts charged as stated in the preceding paragraph are crimes falling under Article 2(2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Act and cannot be prosecuted against the intent expressed by the check holder or the check holder, which fall under Article 2(4) of the same Act. According to the records, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant collected three copies of the check indicated in the above facts charged after the prosecution. Thus, this case is subject to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.