The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On May 24, 1989, the summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant entered into a per share swap contract in the name of the branch office of the Suwon Finance Center and the Defendant, a representative director, and traded the per share table.

On October 19, 2012, the Defendant issued one check number “D”, “105,712,750 won”, and “19 January 19, 2013” in the name of the said B Company.

However, the holder of the check presented payment to the above bank on December 10, 2012, which was within the time limit for presentment for payment, but did not pay for the shortage of deposit.

2. In a case where the court has taken a preservative measure prohibiting repayment, etc. to the debtor pursuant to Article 43(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the payment bank of a check shall, as a matter of course, refuse payment on the grounds of the above preservative measure, regardless of whether the check has a deposit.

Therefore, if a check is presented after the prohibition of payment and preservation disposition is taken against the drawer of the check under the above law, even if the bank did not comply with the above restriction of payment based on the above law, the issuance of the check does not constitute a crime in violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12457 Decided January 28, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 90Do1317 Decided August 14, 1990 regarding cases where a non-performance and preservation disposition under the former Company Reorganization Act was taken. According to the evidence adopted by the court and examined by this court, it is recognized that a statement of the number of units issued by the defendant was rejected by a new bank as stated in the facts charged, but it is also recognized that a statement of the number of units issued by the defendant was rejected by a new bank, and on the other hand, B Co., Ltd., an issuer of the above number of units issued by the defendant