The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In a case where a part of the check issued prior to convenience is re-written in lieu of issuing a new check according to an agreement between the issuer and the holder of the check, the validity corresponding to the issuance of the new check shall be recognized. Thus, it is not necessary that the ex post facto correction must be made within the time limit for presentment for payment of the check. Even if the ex post facto correction should be made within the time limit for presentment for payment of the check, according to G’s investigative agency and the court below’s statement, it can be acknowledged that the ex post facto correction was made within the time limit for presentment for payment.

In addition, a creditor may be paid all the interest and delay damages until the original due date rather than claiming the loss of the benefit of time. In accordance with the opinion of the court below, if the benefit of time is lost, the creditor is obliged to demand repayment, that is, if the benefit of time is lost, to demand repayment or to execute the security, so it is unfair.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the judgment, even if the extinctive prescription of the right to fill up the blanks on the check was completed, it cannot be deemed a legitimate supplement. Thus, if the blanks on the check were to be filled and the payment was presented after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, even if the check was rejected due to the shortage of deposit or the suspension of transaction, it cannot be held liable for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3184, Nov. 27, 2001). Considering the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case in light of the records, the court below's reasons as stated in its holding.