logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.11.17 2015고단3088
부정수표단속법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 18, 2015, the Defendant entered into a check contract at the seat of the Korean bank in the name of the Defendant on March 18, 2015 and traded the check of the number of shares.

On May 13, 2015, the Defendant issued a check number “F”, “190,00,000 won”, “190,000,000 won”, and the date of issuance “7. 30, 2015” under the Defendant’s name, and issued one check number per bank under the Defendant’s name, which was within the period of time when payment was presented by the holder on August 4, 2015, but did not receive deposits due to the shortage of deposits, as shown in the attached list of crimes, and did not receive deposits or suspension of transactions on three occasions in total, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

On March 18, 2015, the Defendant entered into a check contract at the seat of the Korean bank in the name of the Defendant on March 18, 2015 and traded the check of the number of shares.

On April 22, 2015, the Defendant issued a check number “G”, par value “20,000,000”, and issuance date “ September 30, 2015,” one copy of the check number per bank in the name of the Defendant in the E office of a limited liability company in the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant located in Pakistan, and offered payment proposal on October 7, 2015, for which the holder presented payment proposal, but failed to pay as suspension of transaction.

Summary of Evidence

"2015 Highest 3088"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each accusation (190,00,000 won per unit, 200,00,000,000 won per unit, and 29,971,392 won per unit) 2015,3140;

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each accusation note (220,000,000 won per unit) Defendant and defense counsel submitted a check number “F”, par value “190,000,000 won” to the actual right holder of H. Since the Defendant expressed his intention not to punish the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s failure to punish the Defendant alone expressed his intention not to punish the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant and defense counsel.

arrow