The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A. In return for 42 million won received by M from L, the Defendant issued to L the checks of the instant case (the check number F and G; hereinafter “instant checks”) at par value with L in blank.

At the time, the Defendant decided to hold a prior consultation when exercising the right to supplement with L, and supplement the sum of the face value of the instant checks without prior consultation exceeding KRW 42 million.

Therefore, the Defendant is not liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to the portion exceeding KRW 42 million out of the total face value of the instant checks in excess of KRW 122 million.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the entire facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) In the event of an argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles where the blank check is unfairly supplemented, the issuer of the blank check is liable to commit a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act within the scope of the right to supplement, since the blank check is not different from the supplement of the amount by the issuer of the blank check within the scope of the right to supplement. However, the amount exceeding the right to supplement cannot be the same as the amount supplement by the issuer. Thus, the issuer cannot be held liable to commit a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act even if it exceeds the right to supplement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7185 Decided December 26, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7185). The following facts or circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the judgment below and the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7185, Dec. 26, 201). M receives from L to deliver to L the following facts or circumstances, i.e., KRW 42 million (76 million as L’s assertion) and in return, the amount of face value received from the Defendant