In the event that a discount is received by altering the payment date of a promissory note, the nature of fraud (affirmative)

If the due date on a bill is altered for discount of a promissory note, and the full amount of the promissory note is concealed, endorsed, transferred, and received discounted money, then it constitutes criminal fraud even if the actor is liable in accordance with the legal principles of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act after alteration.

Articles 69, 77 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 82No623 delivered on October 27, 1982

The non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of fraud on the ground that, in the event that the defendant altered the three payment dates of each of the Promissory Notes in this case and endorsed and transferred them at discount, the Daejeon Central Credit Union, the issuer of each of the Promissory Notes in this case, shall be liable in accordance with the language and text of the alteration, and the defendant shall be liable in accordance with the language and text of the alteration, even if the victim's three payment dates of the Promissory Notes in this case, at a discount not knowing that each of the above payment dates of the Promissory Notes in this case was altered, and thus, it is obvious that the above victims agreed to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes in this case to the defendant at the payment date as stated in each of the Promissory Notes in this case, and it is obvious that the above victims made an agreement between the defendant and the defendant to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes in this case at a discount.

However, if the due date of a promissory note was altered and all of the promissory note was received by deceiving others as if it were genuine, then it shall be deemed that the actor constitutes criminal fraud even if he/she is liable in accordance with the legal principles of the Promissory Notes Act, even if he/she is held liable in accordance with the language and text after alteration.

According to the records, even if the representative of the Daejeon Central Credit Union, which was in possession of a promissory note from the non-indicted Kim Yong-deok, altered on December 7, 1981 and transferred the due date of the promissory note with the amount of January 10, 1982, which was the 1,500,000 won, from January 16, 1982, and 1,500 won, and the due date of the promissory note of January 17, 1982, which was the 1,50,000 won, were issued on August 31, 1982, 1981, and the defendant did not make a discount from each of the above victims under the above legal principles, and if the defendant did not know that the payment date of the promissory note of December 19, 1982, the defendant did not make a discount from each of the victims under the above legal principles and did not make an alteration in the promissory note of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of fraud under different opinions is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles of fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)