Whether a person has committed a crime with regard to concealment of an offender, where, knowing that a check is not payable, the check has concealed the drawer immediately before the receipt (affirmative)

The crime in violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established at the time when the check was issued and predicting the fact that the check will not be paid on the date of presentation due to the shortage of deposits, and it is not established only when the check is refused to be paid on the date of presentation by the holder of the check. Thus, even if the check was before the date of the default, the Defendant’s concealment of the check cannot be said to have no criminal intent as to the concealment of the offender, if he knew of the fact that the check would be defaulted, and that the check issuer would be forced to receive the check by the investigative agency in

Article 2 of the Illegal Check Control Act, Articles 13 and 151 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 87No187 delivered on June 23, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court of first instance or the fact-finding of the court below that held that the crime of violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established at the time when the issuer issues the check, and it is not established at the time when the check holder refuses to pay the check amount on the date of presentment. Since the non-indicted's failure to pay the check issued by the non-indicted 2640 on June 20, 1985 does not constitute a criminal act when the defendant concealed the check, but even if it was on June 21 of the same year, it is not the fact that the above check was returned by the defendant and even if it was on June 21 of the same year, it cannot be said that the defendant has no criminal intent as to concealment of the offender, as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, unless the defendant knew that he would have the investigative agency twice due to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no violation of the rules of evidence selection as to the criminal facts of this case or the criminal facts of this case.

In this case where the defendant was sentenced to less than 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor, there is no legitimate ground for appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)