The case holding that deletion of entry of the amount of a promissory note in order to return it to the issuer in its original condition is within the scope of its authority, since those who are delegated by the issuer of a promissory note discount, the amount of the promissory note, which is in blank, intend to discount the amount of the note after stating it within the scope of delegation, and as such, did not achieve its objective, it cannot be deemed alteration of securities.

The case holding that deletion of entry of the amount of a promissory note in order to return it to the issuer in its original condition is within the scope of its authority, since those who are delegated by the issuer of a promissory note discount, the amount of the promissory note, which is in blank, intend to discount the amount of the note after stating it within the scope of delegation and do not meet its purpose, and therefore, it cannot be deemed alteration of securities.

Article 214 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Cho Jae-tae

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2005No169 Decided August 11, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

An alteration in the crime of alteration of securities refers to that a person, who is not authorized to do so, shall not harm the identity of the securities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do1862, Nov. 27, 1984; 2001Do6553, Jan. 10, 2003; 2001Do6553, Jan. 10, 2003). The amount of a promissorysory note, when a person who is delegated by the issuer of a promissory note, intends to discount a promissory note after stating the amount within the scope of delegation, and then intends to cancel the amount of the promissory note in order to return the promissorysory note that has not been distributed to the issuer according to its original purpose, is within the scope of its authority. Therefore, it shall not be deemed the alteration of securities

The court below found, based on evidence, that Non-Indicted 1 issued and delivered five copies of the Promissory Notes with face value including the Promissory Notes No. 20374 (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”) to Non-Indicted 2 on or around December 2002, because Non-Indicted 2, who requested the issuance of the Promissory Notes with face value No. 20374, and Non-Indicted 2's request for the delivery of five copies of the Promissory Notes with face value No. 1.400 million won, it is difficult for the Defendant to receive a discount of KRW 1.4 billion, and Non-Indicted 2 delivered five copies of the Promissory Notes to him/her at the request of the non-Indicted 2 to use the Promissory Notes at a discount of KRW 1.4 billion, and accordingly, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received a discount of face value with face value no more than KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above recognition and determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of right to supplement blank and the time of extinguishment.

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

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)