A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, No. 1 ( check number C) of the attached list of crimes.

Punishment of the crime

On August 5, 1997, the defendant entered into a comprehensive deposit transaction agreement with one bank and one bank branch in the name of the defendant, and has traded household checks.

On September 4, 1997, the Defendant issued the provisional coefficient table in the name of the Defendant, “F” in the name of “F” in the name of “F” in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, the check number, “G”, “date of issuance,” “5,00,000 won at par value,” and on December 4, 1997, the bearer of the check presented a payment proposal to the said bank on or around December 4, 1997.

However, the Defendant did not pay the above check due to the shortage of deposits, and the Defendant did not pay the deposit amount of KRW 48,000,000 in total as shown in [Attachment Table Nos. 3 through 12] between around that time and December 22, 1997.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each family check;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the former Control of Illegal Check Act (Law No. 4587) applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. From among concurrent offenders, a part of dismissing the prosecution by making a sentence as ordered in consideration of the fact that the household check of 58 million won was rejected due to the shortage of deposits, among the reasons for sentencing Article 37 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the crime of this case was committed to Japan after the crime of this case, and that the 48 million won has not been recovered from damage, etc.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant issued the provisional coefficient table Nos. 1 and 2 of the annexed list of crimes at the time and place of the facts charged as indicated in the judgment, and the holder of the check presented a payment proposal to the above bank on December 12, 1997, which was within the time limit for presentment for payment, but did not receive the deposit shortage.

2. The criminal cannot be prosecuted against the express intention expressed by the holder of the check under Article 2(4) of the Illegal Check Control Act. He who is the holder of the check shall be punished against the defendant after the prosecution of this case.