2015 Highest 1877, 2540 (Joint) and 2612 (Joint) Violation of the Illegal Check Control Act

A person shall be appointed.

Residence

Reference domicile

Kim Jong-sung, Maho-young (Public Prosecution), Yang Jin-Jon, Lee Jin-Jon, Lee Jin-Jon, and door support (Public trial)

Attorneys OOO (KO)

January 14, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each Illegal Check Control Act listed in the separate sheet of crime No. 2015Kadan2540

Facts of violation are not guilty

The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be published against the defendant.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】

On July 23, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act at the Seoul Southern District Court on July 23, 2008 and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Southern Southern District Court on December 10, 2008.

[Criminal facts 【2015 Highest 1877】

On March 24, 2010, the Defendant filed a false report on the number of units at the ○○○ Dong branch in Seoul, ○○○○-dong, and the Defendant filed a false report on the number of units at the ○○○○○-dong branch in Seoul, ○○○○○-dong, with a check number of KRW 80727, par value KRW 3,710,000,000,000 on the date of issuance, April 16, 2010, as indicated at the ○ Dong branch in the ○○-dong branch in Seoul, ○○-dong. However, the Defendant issued the check normally.

As a result, the Defendant filed a false report with a financial institution in order to escape payment of the check amount. [Criminal facts 2015 Highest 2540]

From December 3, 2008, the Defendant entered into a check contract with the ○○ Dong branch of the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation and the Defendant working as the representative director under the name of the ○○○ Real Estate Distribution Co., Ltd. and entered into a check contract with the Defendant.

1. On March 31, 2010, at the ○○○○ Dong branch of the NA○○○○○○○○-dong, the Defendant filed a report on the change of the check number with respect to one copy of the check number, referring to 36,50,00 won in check amount, referring to 36,50,000 won in check amount, and referring to 1 copy of the check number issued on March 31, 2010 in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong, Seoul. However, the Defendant was normally issued the check number.

Accordingly, the Defendant made a false report to a financial institution in order to escape payment of the check amount.

2. On April 12, 2010, the Defendant filed a false report of the above alteration and alteration with respect to one copy of the check number at the ○○ Dong branch of the above Agricultural Cooperatives, which is the "OO No.80739", "the check amount", "13,500,000 won", and "date of issuance", "No. 10 April 10, 2010, the name of the above ○○ Water Products, Inc., the Defendant reported the above alteration and alteration. However, the Defendant was a normal issuance of the above check number.

Accordingly, the Defendant made a false report to a financial institution in order to escape payment of the check amount.

[Criminal facts 【2015 Highest 2612】

On December 3, 2008, the Defendant entered into a check contract in the name of ○○, a corporation with which the Defendant works as representative director from around December 3, 2008 to ○○ Dong Branch, and entered into a check contract in the name of ○○, a corporation with which the Defendant works as representative director

On May 2010, the Defendant issued a check number 80737 at a non-permanent location, a check amount 25, 000, 000 won, and a check amount 1 copy of the Nong Bank under the name of the date of issuance to the bearer of the check.

On June 3, 2010, the Defendant’s holder of the said check, within the time limit for presentment for payment, at ○○○ Office of the Nonghyup Bank.

Although the date of issuance of the check was supplemented and presented as of June 3, 2010, it was not paid due to the shortage of deposits.

Summary of Evidence

【2015 Highest 1877】

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A written accusation;

1. A copy of a check;

1. Business registration certificate;

1. A registration statement on accidents of seal imprints/registration of change;

【2015 Highest 2540】

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each accusation (No. 6, No. 8)

1. A copy of each check (OO-level 80925,O-level 80739);

【2015 Highest 2612】

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. A copy of the list of units;

【Prior Records of Judgment】

1. 2015 Highest 1877: The current status of inquiry report, personal identification/ expropriation;

1. 2015 Height2540: A written inquiry and inquiry;

1. 2015 Highest 2612: A written reply to inquiries, such as criminal records (2015 Highest 2612);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 4 (False Reporting to Financial Institutions) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act, Article 2 of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act

Paragraph 2, Paragraph 1 (2), (1) (the unpaid point after the issuance of the check), and each choice of imprisonment;

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion (2015 Highest 1877)

(4) In light of the following circumstances, the court lawfully adopted and examined the following facts: ① the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the Defendant lost his/her checks to the public prosecutor without any knowledge of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s statement to the effect that it was 7 books issued by the public prosecutor; (b) the Defendant’s statement to the effect that he/she had no knowledge of the fact that he/she had lost his/her name on the corporation; and (c) the Defendant’s statement to the effect that it was 7 books issued by the public prosecutor’s office; and (d) the Defendant’s statement to the effect that it was hard to acknowledge that it was 7 books issued by the public prosecutor’s office; and (e) the Defendant’s statement to the effect that it was 7 books issued by the public prosecutor’s office; and (e) the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the remaining amount of checks issued by the public prosecutor’s office was 00,000 won or less; and (e) the Defendant’s statement to the effect that they were 1 books issued.

On a different premise, although acquiring the company of this case merely transferred to B, etc. the check, etc., and without delegation or permission, B, etc., did not notify the defendant of the above face value 30,710,000 won per share by using the check books, etc. transferred to B, etc., and thus, the defendant is not liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to the above check units. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant and his defense counsel are not liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

In light of the fact that the Defendant generally recognized the mistake of each of the crimes of this case and against the Defendant, even if considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant’s health condition was not good, the check was altered to a financial institution in order to avoid default even though the check was issued in a normal manner. The crime reported falsely to the effect that the crime of this case is not good, and the Defendant’s trust in the transaction of the check was impaired due to the remaining crimes of this case, and there is no check recovered even after considerable period of time after each of the crimes of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the sum of face value of the check under each of the crimes of this case is less than the sum of the face value of the check under each of the crimes of this case, even if long, the Defendant was punished twice for the same crimes, and the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being punished for a repeated offense period after completion of the execution of the sentence according to the judgment on criminal records of this case, and the criminal procedure such as escape was considerably delayed due to the inevitable investigation under each of the crimes of this case, and the Defendant’s sentence is more difficult.

In the above circumstances, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, and the situation after the crime is committed shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the following factors.

The acquittal portion

1. The summary of this part of the facts charged (each illegal check listed in the separate sheet of crime among the cases 2015 Highest 2540)

Violation of the Control Act

From December 3, 2008, the Defendant entered into a check contract with the ○○ Dong branch of the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation and the Defendant working as the representative director under the name of the ○○○ Real Estate Distribution Co., Ltd. and entered into a check contract with the Defendant.

On June 5, 2010, the Defendant issued a copy of the check number 80921, 'O No. 80921', '70,000, 000 won', 'No. 5, 'No. 2010', 'No. 5, 'No. 2010', 'No. 200, 'No. 5, 2010.'

On June 7, 2010, the holder of the check at issue, which was within the time limit for presentment of payment, presented the check to the National Federation of the said Nonghyup, but the Defendant did not receive the check as a disposition of suspension of transaction, and did not receive the check as a disposition of suspension of transaction as shown in the attached list of crimes in the attached Form 4.

2. Determination

(a) Vindication made by the defendant and defense counsel;

1) Although it is recognized that each statement of the number of units of the annexed crime (referred to in this part as "each statement of the number of units" in this part) issued by the instant company as an issuer is not paid as a disposition of suspension of transaction, the Defendant did not issue each statement of the number of units of the annexed crime.

2) The Defendant merely transferred the check, etc. to B, etc. on behalf of the Defendant to whom the instant company was transferred, but did not notify the Defendant of the fact that B, etc. entrusted or allowed the issuance of the check to B, etc., by using the check, etc., which was transferred to the Defendant, but merely issued each part of the check.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant does not support that the list of units in this part is liable for a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to the said list.

B. Determination

1) Even when comprehensively considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the defense counsel, there is an agreement to transfer this case to B, etc. between the Defendant and the defense counsel, or it is insufficient to recognize the fact that B, etc. issued each part of this part of this case without the Defendant’s consent by using the check and the responsibility that they received from the Defendant, etc., it is true that the defense counsel’s above purport is difficult to believe it as it is and there is a strong doubt as to whether the Defendant and the defense counsel did not make a false assertion for

2) However, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court and the following circumstances revealed by the court, i.e., ① if the defendant issued each part of this part of this part of this case, the body or the form of writing on the face amount should be the same. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant issued a bill with a supplementary right, ② there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant issued a bill with a face value blank, ② The time limit for payment of each part of this part of this case stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment recognizing the issuance by the defendant himself is the transaction relation with the defendant. However, it seems that there was no special transaction relation between the defendant, but there is no evidence to know how the payer was in possession of each part of this part of this part of this case, ③ some of this part of this part of this case's check is the body or the form of writing, etc.,

In the case of B, it appears that each statement containing the purport that he/she will be responsible for and repaid to B, and it appears that D, which appears to have no particular transaction relationship with the Defendant, is a question about what the above statement was prepared, and ⑤ the Defendant asserts that E is one of the two persons on the part of B, which he/she intended to take over the instant company. Meanwhile, E is deemed to have known about the process of issuing the check per unit to B, etc., even if it appears to have been presented to the effect that each of the above parts of this case’s statement was not consistent, in light of the fact that the Defendant and his/her defense counsel did not know about the previous contents of the check, and that it was merely a 3th degree of defect in hearing of his/her witness, and that he/she did not know about the fact that he/she did not have been given a false testimony during the examination process of his/her witness, and that he/she did not ask the Defendant to give a false testimony in light of the contents and/she did not have any duty to give a false testimony.

3) The prosecutor is responsible to prove the facts constituting the crime prosecuted in a criminal trial. The conviction is based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, there is no doubt as to the defendant's interest, so long as there is doubt as to the same suspicion as the above 2) above, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant issued each part of this Section, or delegated another person such as E or D with the issuance of each part of this part of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

C. Ultimately, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s intentional intent on the issuance of each of the instant units of shares by the evidence presented by the prosecution alone is beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against the defendant constitutes a case where there is no proof of the facts charged. Thus, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment of innocence pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is to be publicly

Judges Park Jae-young

1) The indictment is written “35,00,000 won” but it appears to be a clear clerical error, so it does not disadvantage the defendant’s exercise of his/her right of defense.

In accordance with the facts that have been obtained through the investigation of evidence, the criminal facts of 36,500,000 won are corrected.

2) “C” seems to be a clerical error.

The list of crimes shall be made.

A person shall be appointed.