Requirements for establishing a crime of violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

The violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established when the issuer of a check predicted that the check will not be paid on the date for presentation due to the shortage of deposits and issued a check. Thus, if the check amount incurs the result that the check was not paid on the date for presentation without any clear measures for securing the current account for a considerable amount of deposit or the current account for payment prohibition, it constitutes a crime of violation of the same Article.

Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do3239 Delivered on April 26, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 85No369 delivered on July 19, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

The violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established when the issuer of a check predicted and issued a check that the check will not be paid on the date of presentation due to the shortage of deposits. Thus, if the check amount resulted in the result that the check was issued and the check was not paid on the date of presentation without any clear measures to secure the deposit amount or the current account for payment prohibition, it shall be deemed a violation of the same Article. In light of the record, even if the Defendant took the measures to secure the payment of the check at the time of the original check, there is no evidence to conclude that the agreement to supplement the check was between the holder and the check within the scope of the obligation, such as the Defendant’s assertion, and there is no lack of evidence to conclude that the agreement to supplement the check was between the holder and the check at the time of the check, and therefore, it cannot be said that the court below committed an offense of violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act. The amount of the check amount is excessive. Therefore,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju