Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 25, 2008, the defendant opened a political party under the name of the defendant at the Suwon Central Financial Center branch and traded the coefficient mark.

On August 16, 2012, the Defendant issued two copies of the family check of "E, F", "3 million won" and "three million won" on the date of issuance at the office of the D Co., Ltd. of the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "E, F"), and each of "three million won" and presented each payment to the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "C Co., Ltd.") within the payment deadline, but did not receive any shortage of deposits.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control 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 of prosecution under Article 6 of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act, Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the facts charged was on January 25, 2008, the Defendant opened a party account in the name of the Defendant at the branch of the Suwon Central Financial Center and traded the coefficient index.

On August 16, 2012, the Defendant issued two copies of the family check of "B", "B", "C", and "3 million won" on the date of issuance at the office of the D company office in Sungsung-si on the date of issuance, and each of "three million won" respectively, and presented each payment to the G Co., Ltd. within the period of payment proposal, but failed to pay the same as the shortage of deposit.

2. We examine the judgment, and the facts charged are crimes falling under Article 2(2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Act, and where check is recovered pursuant to Article 2(4) of the same Act, a public prosecution cannot be instituted. According to the records of this case, the fact that the defendant recovered each of the above coefficient factors after the institution of the public prosecution of this case is recognized.

Therefore, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.