A. Defendant

Considering the fact that the Defendant did not intentionally make a default, but did not check the financial difficulties aggravated in the course of assisting his students and partners, and that his family members made efforts to recover the default checks by withdrawing part of the defaulted checks at the original court. The appellate court also agreed with the last holder B of the defaulted checks No. 2 and 5 in the attached Table (Omission) in the judgment of the lower court. The Defendant did not have the same criminal record and contributed to the local community for a period of 20 years, such as that he did not assist students in studying while operating the points before the XX University, and that the Defendant was able to study in depth, the lower court’s sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

In view of the fact that among the shares per share sheet issued by the defendant, the unpaid amount reaches KRW 387 million in consideration of the fact that there is a very heavy issue, etc., from among the lawful presentation of payment by the holder, the sentencing of the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

On the other hand, the defendant's act of committing the crime of this case, such as 10 copies of checks which the defendant did not recover due to his default, and 387 million won in total, shall not be subject to punishment for the defendant simply on the other hand, while making efforts to recover the checks in default and making efforts to reach an agreement with the last holder of the checks in the court below, and continuously making efforts to reach an agreement on the other hand, the defendant has no same criminal record, and the defendant has contributed to the local community by operating the letter "BBBT" at the university for about 20 years, with a lot of help students study, such as the motive or circumstance leading up to the crime of this case, the situation before and after the crime of this case, the effort to recover damage, the existence of the same criminal record, the age of the defendant's home environment, etc., and the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is not reasonable. Thus, all of the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jong-ho

Judges Kim Gin-ju