The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding of facts, the check number “D” was collected after full repayment to the holder, and (2) the check number “E” was issued at will with the intention of discounting the check.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (A) Article 2(2) and (3) of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that a person who has issued or prepared a check shall not be prosecuted against the intent expressed by the holder of the check even though he/she has not recovered the check or has not recovered the check, in such a case, a judgment dismissing the check shall be sentenced. However, it is interpreted that a person who does not wish to recover the check or to punish the holder of the check is obliged to do so before the judgment of the court of first instance is sentenced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do3122, Feb. 3, 1995). (b) In examining the record, the Defendant paid the full amount of the check number “D” check to the holder of the check on March 4, 2013, which was prior to the judgment of the court of first instance, but can be recognized that the check was recovered after the declaration of the court below. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the check paid the amount cannot be deemed to have not expressed his/her intent to punish the check.

(2) As long as the assertion that the check was stolen is issued by the Defendant’s will and is offered for transaction circulation, the Defendant does not have any effect on the external validity of the check, regardless of the existence of the above circumstance, which is merely a ground for personal defense, even if the person who requested the discount and did not deliver the discount to others, thereby resulting in default.