Whether the issuer of a blank check may be held liable for a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act within the scope of the right to supplement, even in the case where the holder of a blank check has abused his/her right to supplement and thereby making up an unjust supplement to the amount

The amount of money is that the holder of a blank check abused the right to fill the amount and unjustly supplement the amount is to issue a new check using the existing check paper with the signature and seal of the issuer when the scope of the right to fill the blank and thereby constitutes a crime of forging the securities, the issuer of the blank check shall be liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act within the scope of the right to fill the blank.

Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Do897 delivered on June 13, 197 (No. 20-2, 27) Supreme Court Decision 94Do2464 delivered on September 29, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3649)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 98No3467 delivered on February 26, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the check No. 3 5,90,00 won No. 3 of the annexed sheet No. 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance was originally filled up by the Defendant to Non-Indicted 1's column of the same crime list (1) No. 2. The check was delivered in blank to secure the amount equivalent to the interest amount. After that, the Defendant's default Kim Jong-ok was in progress with the auction procedure against the Defendant's property, the above amount of the check No. 35,290,00 won, which is 10 times the above amount of the check No. 352,90,000 won. In general, if the amount of the check was filled up by abuse of supplementary rights, the issuer is limited to the scope of the supplementary rights and the issuer is not liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, and it did not go against the purport of this decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1964, Apr. 24, 1996).

2. Determination:

The court below seems to have decided on the premise that the issuer of a blank check shall not be liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act even within the scope of the right to supplement, in case where the amount of the check is unjustly filled by abuse of the right to supplement and the check is not identical to the original blank check and the check after the improper supplement are serious.

However, even if the holder of a check in blank has abused the right to fill the blank amount and issued a new check using the existing check paper with the signature and seal of the drawer for the purpose of raising the scope of the right to fill the blank amount and constitutes a crime of forging the securities, the issuer of the blank check shall be liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act within the scope of the right to fill the blank amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Do897, Jun. 13, 197; 94Do2464, Sept. 29, 195).

Therefore, in the case of this case, the right to supplement the interest amounting to 35,290,000 won is granted, and the defendant shall be held liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act within the scope of the above supplement right, and the conclusion shall not change because the circumstances and contents as stated in the judgment of the court below were made with respect to the illegal supplement. However, the decision of the court below that the defendant did not bear the responsibility for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to the whole amount unjustly supplemented for the reasons as stated in its decision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal

3. Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and 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 judges.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)