[1] In a case where it is impossible to determine whether a check was presented within the time limit for presentment of payment under the Check Act, whether the requirements for establishment under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act are satisfied (negative)

[2] The case holding that in the case where a financial institution in the right side divided into three partitions and presented a payment proposal with a new date indicated in the middle column, but the payment refusal was made on the ground of non-transaction under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, at intervals of about 1cm from the issue column and at intervals of about 3cm from the upper part of the upper part used for internal resolution by the financial institution, it did not meet the elements of the element of the crime under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

[1] The illegal check under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act requires that it be presented within the time limit for presentment for payment under the Check Act, and the entry of the date of issue is essential in order to determine whether or not the check complies with the above time limit for presentation. In addition, since the check is a literal document and a circulation security, it shall be interpreted in accordance with the language and text, and it shall be possible to determine whether or not the check is presented within the time limit for presentment for payment under the Check Control Act. Thus, if not, it does not meet the requirements for establishment under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act.

[2] The case holding that in the case where payment was refused on the ground of non-transaction since the number stated in the column for internal resolution of the financial institution is not the column for issuance, but the number stated in the column for internal resolution of the financial institution is not the column for issuance, and since the crossing stated in the column for issuance still remains as an effective issue date without being deleted, it cannot be deemed as a lawful entry of the issue date as a corrective entry of the issue date, on the ground that the additional statement in the column for approval remains as a valid issue date without being deleted.

[1] Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act; Article 2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Illegal Check Control Act; Articles 28 (2) and 29 of the Check Act / [2] Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Do340 delivered on May 10, 1983 (Gong1983, 986) Supreme Court Decision 98Do3013 delivered on January 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 402)

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2003No260 delivered on May 22, 2003

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

1. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The facts charged in this case

On November 15, 1997, the Defendant entered into a check number issuance contract with the king-si branch of the NACF and issued the check number table. On February 3, 2001, the Defendant issued a check number 0589371, face value 10 million won, and the date of issuance on April 10, 200. The Defendant issued one copy of the check number per issuer and presented a payment proposal to a bank light-dong branch on April 8, 2000 during the payment proposal period, but on March 17, 200, the Defendant issued the check number 889,000 won for each of the reasons as shown in the attached list of the attached list of the first instance judgment and the Plaintiff did not pay the suspension order within 70,000,000 won for each of the reasons that it was paid on March 17, 200.

B. The judgment of the court below

In full view of the evidence adopted by the court of first instance that he accepted, the court below determined that the check was legitimately presented for payment, since the defendant stated the issue date as of February 14, 200 at the time of issuing each check listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2 of the attached Table No. 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance among the check, but the defendant stated it as of February 14, 200 each time when the check was issued, but the holder affixed a corrective seal on the subsequent issue date so as to allow the correction of the issue date, and accordingly, the holder can recognize the fact that the new issue date was corrected as of March 28, 200 and November 18, 200.

2. The judgment of this Court

Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that when a person who has issued or prepared a check fails to pay it on the date of presentation due to shortage of deposits, suspension of transactions, or cancellation or termination of check contract after issuing the check, it shall be deemed to be an illegal check. Meanwhile, Article 2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the date of presentment" means the date on which the check is presented under Article 28 (2) of the Check Act and the date on which the check is presented for payment to financial institutions within the period of presentment for payment under Article 29 of the same Act. Thus, the illegal check under Article 2 (2) of the same Act requires that the check is presented within the period of presentment for payment under the Check Act, and it is essential that the date of issuance is written in order to determine whether the check complies with the above time limit of presentation, and it shall be interpreted in accordance with the language and text, so it shall be decided that the check has been presented within the period of presentation for payment under the Check Act.

The Defendant entered the No. 1 check number 05893709 and No. 2 05893710 in the table of crime 20. The Defendant issued 200 on February 14, 200 each 300 and delivered 100 for checks to check 20. The check number 05893710 on February 14, 200, 2000, 29000.3.00 1.0.00 3.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 3 0 0.2 0 1 0 0 0. 1 0 0 0.2 1 0 0 0. 3 0 1 0 0. 3 0 0 0. 14. 1 29, 200 1 20 . 3 3 0. 3 0. 3 3 3 3 3 . 3 3 . . 3 20. . 3 . 3 3 . 3 .

In the facts of this case, even if the check number Ma 05893709 and the check number Ma Ma 05893710 were written in the column for internal resolution of the financial institution of the check 05893710, the place where the number is written was not in the column for issuance, but in the column for internal resolution of the financial institution, not in the column for issuance, and the issue date still remains as a valid issue date without being crossed out on February 29, 2000 or February 200, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the additional statement in the column for approval remains as a lawful entry of the issue date.

Ultimately, the lower court, a fact-finding court, should have further examined whether the check number Ma is 05893709 and the check number Ma 05893710 are complied with, and should have determined whether the check number Ma is 0589370, and should have determined whether the check number Ma is compliant with the due and effective issue date as well as the period of presentment for payment under the Check Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment below which found the defendant guilty on two copies of the above check at the stage of not going through such a hearing, did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the facts were found in violation of the law of evidence or constitutes the elements of an illegal check under the Control of Illegal Check Control Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal assigning this error is justified.

3. Scope of reversal

Since the court below sentenced the defendant to the crime of violation of the Illegal Check Control Act and the crime of violation of the Illegal Check Control Act by the remaining checks as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in its entirety.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)