[1] The case holding that the facts charged under Article 1 of the Securities Act are specified

[2] The responsibility of the drawer of a check in case where the drawer of a check fails to pay a discount on his/her request for a check and receive a discount

[3] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which found guilty of fraud erred in violation of the rules of evidence

[1] The case holding that since the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime are sufficiently stated to the extent that it can support the forgery of the securities to the extent that the identity of the crime can be recognized, the prevention of double indictment, the promotion of prescription, and the territorial jurisdiction can be exercised, as long as all the forged securities remain, the facts charged are specified

[2] As long as a check is issued by the Defendant’s will and is offered to distribute the transaction, the Defendant cannot be exempted from liability for failure to pay the check, even if the person who requested a discount and received the request fails to distribute it to others and deliver a discount, thereby resulting in default on payment. This does not affect the external validity of the check according to the existence or absence of the above circumstances, which are merely a reason for personal defense.

[3] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of fraud is erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence although there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the crime of defraudation by deception was committed

[1] Article 214 of the Criminal Code, Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act / [3] Article 347 of the Criminal Code (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 195), Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1148 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 2605) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Do1663 delivered on November 24, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 299)

Defendant

Seocho Law Firm, Attorney Lee Jae-soo

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 95No1342 delivered on January 16, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the crime other than the crime of false accusation against the victim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal on the remaining crimes except for fraud against the victim's heading assistance.

A. Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court in comparison with the records, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of each of the following facts: (a) the victim examination rules; (b) fraud against leapmaking; (c) the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act; and (d) fraud against the victim’s friendly coal plant against the victim’s heading; and (c) the use of securities; and (d) the use of the same and false accusation against the rules of evidence; and (c) there were no errors in matters of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, fraud; (d) mistake in the application of laws and regulations regarding

B. As to the ground of appeal against violation of the law on the violation of securities fraud

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the facts charged in the instant case are as follows: “The date, time and place of the crime, and place are “at the end of April 1991,” and “at the end of the check number of 0167701,000 won” and “at the end of June 10, 1991, the check number of 01670,000 won is indicated in the check form as “at the end of June 10, 1991, and at the end of June 10, 1991, the check is forged by affixing a name tag for the representative head of the macro-industry representative prepared in advance.” However, as long as all the forged securities remain in the instant case, the crime, time, place, method, etc. are specified to the extent that can support the forgery of the securities to the extent that the identity of the crime can be recognized, the prevention of double prosecution, the prescription, and territorial jurisdiction of the party members. In this respect, the above facts charged is specified.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as a breach of law, such as a theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for the argument.

C. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Illegal Check Control Act

As long as the check under paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court of first instance is issued at the defendant's will and is offered to distribute transaction, as alleged by the defendant, the non-indicted 1 requested the discount of the check, and the person does not deliver it to others and eventually cause default, even if the check eventually causes default, it does not affect the external validity of the check depending on the existence or absence of the above circumstances, which are merely a reason for personal defense, and thus, the defendant cannot be exempted from liability for the non-payment of the check (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do163 delivered on November 24, 195). The argument on this part is without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal on fraud of the defraudation of the victim headal bombs.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the first instance court, based on the evidence cited by the judgment, confirmed the fact that the defendant was obtained 49,410,400 won in total from 50 times before and after the 11th of the same month to 19,235.26 tons of flexible coal and obtained 49,40 won in total from 1,235.26 to 49,40 won in total (the part of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court of first instance) and acquired it through deception, although the defendant was supplied with bitane from the first instance on March 1991 to 191 (the part of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of first instance).

However, in comparison with the trial records of the first instance court, the first instance court's use of it as evidence for the above facts can be seen that the defendant's statement of the witness's name in the fourth trial records, each statement of the witness's name in the fifth trial records, the protocol of examination of the suspect's name in the prosecutor's records, and the statement of statement about the head's name as to the defendant's name prepared by the judicial police officer, etc. In light of the records, the above documentary evidence was introduced by the defendant who was operated the defendant who delivered the friendly coal factory located in the Masung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, U.S., and the Masan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, U.S., U.S.'s name on February 191, 191, and the reputation of the defendant's name and the defendant's name were not paid at all if he delivered the above two factories and paid it at that time. Thus, the defendant believed the above two factories and supplied the above two factories and did not pay its father's.

However, according to the above evidence, the above-mentioned heading and heading should be included in the sales contract as a matter of course in accordance with the rule of law, if the defendant supplied the above-mentioned heading and heading had the above-mentioned heading and heading were urged to take over the above-mentioned heading coal factory as he had failed to pay the above amount, and the defendant purchased 330,000,000 won for all of the factory machinery such as coal and heavy equipment in the above-mentioned heading factory (the facts stated in the judgment of the court of first instance). If the motive to purchase all the factory machinery in the above-mentioned heading factory is the same as above, the above sales contract should be included in the agreement on the liquidation of the above heading coal payment, and the above sales contract (one right 149) or the agreement on August of the same month after the date of the sales contract (the above investigation records and documents concerning the above-mentioned heading 45,000 won can not be easily acknowledged as being related to the above-mentioned heading evidence (the above investigation records and documents).

Rather, according to the statement of the protocol of interrogation of the prosecutor's investigation as to the truth-finding of the prosecutor's investigation (the investigation records No. 220 pages) it is doubtful that the above fact-finding statement was made that "the defendant received bitomomomomomomomomomomomomomomomomomomomom, which is the intermediate part of the business, but the defendant did not receive it and decided to settle it later and settle it later." Thus, it is doubtful that the above fact-finding was not a transaction between the victim's head and the defendant.

In addition, according to the witness's truth in the 8th trial records, each statement made by the witness abnormal and each statement made by the witness among the 15th trial records and each statement made by the 144th trial records which are bound in the 144th or lower of the 190 trial records, the defendant, as the de facto representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, lost his ability to pay the wages in arrears, etc. of the workers of the above non-indicted 1 corporation due to the failure of the bill, etc. issued in the name of the representative director in the name of the above non-indicted 1 corporation, and the bill, etc. issued in the name of the above non-indicted 1 corporation, which was in the name of the above non-indicted 1 corporation, was transferred to the East-dong Busan District Court for the entire operation of the 8th trial records, and was not involved in the operation of the above dong-dong Busan District District Court for the above workers. In light of this, the defendant cannot be easily believed by the evidence.

Therefore, the above evidence is insufficient to conclude that the defendant committed the crime of defraudation from the above heading of the above heading, but the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted him of the crime of fraud as stated in the above evidence. In this regard, the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment. It is reasonable to discuss this point.

3. However, since the fraud of the above-mentioned stolenation of the above-mentioned stolen head is a concurrent crime with each other except for the accusation of the above-mentioned crime and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the part of the judgment of the court below shall not be maintained.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part on the remaining crimes except for the crime of false accusation against the above truth-finding shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. The remaining appeals by the defendant shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)