logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2013.10.25 2012고단2199
부정수표단속법위반
Text

Each of the instant public prosecution against the Defendants is dismissed.

Reasons

On January 2012, Defendant A, in the facts charged of the instant case, was to take over the “(State)C” from Defendant B, and was to take over part of the company’s profits if the name of the bad credit holder is lent, upon receipt of a request from Defendant B, and then was to take part of the company’s profits as the representative director on January 19, 2012, and was to take part of the company’s profits at the full-time branch of the National Bank, and then, Defendant B was to take part of the number of shares at the full-time branch of the National Bank, and Defendant B was to take part of the number of shares when it actually took over and operated the (State)C.

Defendant

B In April 2012, 2012, the number E, face value 30,00,000 won, and the date of issuance on July 15, 2012, within the office of the (ju) C, which is located in Hannam-si, Hannam-si, Gyeonggi-si, and the Defendant A issued a statement of the number of shares in the name of the (ju)C in which the representative director is the representative director, and presented a payment proposal within the period of payment proposal, but did not pay for the shortage of deposits, respectively.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to issue the above check and presented it within the time limit for payment, but did not receive the deposit shortage.

Judgment

The facts charged in this case are those falling under Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Illegal Check Control Act, for which a person who has issued or prepared a check pursuant to Article 2 (4) of the same Act can not be prosecuted against the intent expressed by the holder of the check even though the check has not been recovered or has not been recovered.

However, the Defendants recovered the above check on October 14, 2013 and submitted it to the court after the prosecution of this case.

Therefore, according to Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the public prosecution against the Defendants is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow