In the event that “B” temporarily lent a blank Promissory Notes from “A” to “B” after the expiration of the period of time for the issuance of the certificate of non-payment, and “A” has received the judgment of nullification on the ground of the loss of the said Promissory Notes, the nature of fraud

If “A” prepares a promissory note in blank without any connection with funds and temporarily lends “B” to “B”, “B” is transferred to “B” as compensation for damages after the expiration of the period for drawing up the protest for refusal of payment, the transfer is only effective, and “B” or “B” against “B” against “B” who is the issuer, and even if “A” lost the said promissory note, it shall not be deemed to have acquired any pecuniary benefit by removing the payment of the promissory note, and therefore, fraud is not established.

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-tae, Counsel for prosecutor's duty

Attorney Park Byung-hee

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 74No1095 delivered on November 1, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the ground of appeal by an attorney Park Jong-tae on behalf of prosecutor

(1) According to the facts established by the original judgment, the defendant created and temporarily lent two promissory notes with the addressee in blank, without regard to money transaction, etc. on February 4, 1968 and 28 of the same month, and he transferred the payment date to the non-indicted 100 on July 6, 1968. Thus, the transfer is only effective after the expiration of the period for the protest for refusal of payment, and there is no right to claim the payment of the promissory notes against the defendant as the issuer, and the above white loan is also a legal principle without the right to claim the payment of the promissory notes against the defendant. Therefore, even if the defendant lost the above promissory notes and received the judgment of nullification, it cannot be deemed that he obtained pecuniary benefits by removing the obligation of the promissory notes, and there is no proof of a crime, and there is no violation of law in the original judgment that acquitted the defendant.

(2) The determination of the evidence is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court, and the record of the case is not recognized as being against the rules of evidence in the original judgment in the case of the court below, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case.

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, according to Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)