The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged was, on August 2, 1997, that the Defendant entered into a check contract with the beneficiary bank and traded the check number sheet in the name of the Defendant. Around September 29, 1998, the Defendant issued a check number D and the face value 320 million won at a multiple check number D and the check number D and the face value 320 million at which the company name in Gangnam-gu Seoul cannot be known. On September 15, 2000, when the date of issuance of a check was corrected to " September 15, 200, when the check date was corrected to "as of September 15, 200, when the check date was presented to the bank within the period of presentment for payment, the check was presented to the bank on September 15, 200, but the check was not paid as the termination of

2. The extinctive prescription of the right to supplement the blank of the check issued with the date of issuance in blank shall begin to run from the time when the exercise of the right on the check is legally possible in light of the underlying relationship between the issuer and the party concerned, barring special circumstances. Considering the fact that a claim arising from the exercise of the right to supplement the blank check is a claim for the check, and that the right to demand the drawer of the check under Article 51 of the Check Act is complete unless the right to demand the check is exercised for six months after the expiration of the period for presentment, it is reasonable to view that the period of extinctive prescription of the right to supplement the blank of the check issued with the

Therefore, even if the blank portion on the check was filled up after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, it cannot be deemed a legitimate supplement. Thus, if the blank portion of the check was filled up after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period and the check was presented for payment, even if the check was rejected due to the shortage of deposit or the suspension of transaction, the crime of violating the Illegal Check Control Act cannot be charged.

(2) In light of the evidence submitted on September 29, 1998, the Defendant issued the check of the unit of this case to E on or around September 29, 1998, with a face value of KRW 320,000,000 as the issue date.