In the event that a bill or check is issued by deception, and the goods are discounted or purchased, and this is not fully distributed, a victim of fraud by the drawer.

If, even though the drawer of a check or a bill has predicted that the check or a bill will not be settled on the date of payment, and the discount or purchase was made by deceiving the other party to the check or the bill, the act of fraud by the drawer is completed thereby. Even if the other party to the transaction transferred the check or the bill to another party to the transaction and the last holder presented the payment on the date of payment, the drawer's act cannot be viewed as fraud in relation to the bill holder, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do806 Delivered on October 18, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 4294Do230 Delivered on October 26, 1961

Defendant 1 and two others

Attorney Lee Young-soo (Defendant 1) (Attorney Cho Young-chul, Counsel for defendant 2)

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No3892 delivered on August 29, 1981

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

1. Judgment on Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal on this case’s legal counsel

The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below concerning the defendant's habitual fraud case against the above defendant, and the defendant habitually.

(1) On November 18, 1978, the defendant accepted and reported the change of the name and representative at the book office of the Seoul Trust Bank, which is the bank of the non-indicted 1 corporation, the representative director of which has become the representative director, and then there is no funds, intent or ability to settle the payment on the date of the payment, but at the end of March 1979, two promissory notes with the face value of three million won in the name of the defendant (which appears to be the name of the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation) and two million won in face value at the office of the defendant around the end of March 1979, shall be issued, and the sum of the face value and two million won in face value shall be discounted from the face value of the bill to be settled on the date of payment, and the sum of the face value of the bill shall be 4.2.5 million won in face value from the end of November 1, 1978 to April 13, 1979, the head shall issue them at a discount of 600 won in total face value, 2000 won or more.

(2) Around the end of 1980, the Defendant, as a total book, conspired to share funds with each business with a view to committing a crime, and acquired the non-indicted 2 corporation. After the representative director was changed in the name of the Defendant in the name of the first instance court, the representative and the name change was reported at the corner branch of the National Bank of Korea, which is a bank bank. At that time, two promissory notes issued in the name of the Defendant in the first instance of the first instance with the place of payment as the name of the Defendant in the name of the Korean Bank, and the two promissory notes issued in the name of the Defendant in the name of the first instance of the first instance to the new Fility office through the Defendant 3, which is a sale book at 1.2 million won at the new Fility office, and issued the above amount at a discount of KRW 135,300,000,000, 201, 2037, 2008, 2008, 2037, 301, etc.

However, even if the evidence of the court of first instance is examined by comparing the records, it is not possible to find out data to find out which the head of the non-indicted 1 in the above judgment was found to have delivered the amount of the judgment to the defendant et al. by any deception (the testimony at the court of first instance and court of original instance) (the above person is well aware of the financial situation of the defendant and the defendant 3, and there is no difference between the above facts in the purport of the above judgment and the fact that the bill was delivered to the defendant et al. for the payment of the price for the above two copies of the bill at the face value of 1.2 million won at the face value of the issuance of the non-indicted 2 corporation at the same time on the condition that the above defendant and the defendant 3 knew the financial situation of the defendant and the defendant 3, and there is no causation between the issuer and the other party's act of disposal and the other party's act of disposal and the other party's act of disposal can be found to have been carried out at a discount or 6.

Nevertheless, as stated in the judgment above, the court below recognized the fact that the head of the non-indicted or the head of the non-indicted, acquired the amount of the judgment by fraud from the holders of the attached Form (1) through (4) and maintained the judgment of the court of the first instance, which caused the defendant to habitually commit the crime of fraud, by acquiring the money equivalent to the face value of each face value from the holders of the attached Form (1) through (4), shall be deemed to have influenced the conclusion of the judgment by committing an unlawful act of recognizing the facts without any evidence, or by misunderstanding the legal principles of fraud, which led to the misunderstanding

2. Therefore, Defendant 1’s appeal is with merit only to the part of habitual fraud, but the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is subject to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and each violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to the same person. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance with respect to the same person cannot be reversed in its entirety. Further, as seen above, in a case where the judgment of the court below is reversed for the benefit of the above defendant as seen above, and the above case is common to Defendant 3 who appealed the judgment of the court below for the benefit of the above defendant, the judgment of the court below against the same person cannot be reversed without

3. Judgment on Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal on Defendant 2’s legal counsel’s assistance

The judgment of the court of first instance affirmed by the court below, on the grounds of the judgment against the above defendant, the defendant, at around 17:00 in the order of 1980, and around 17:00 in the waiting room of the branch office of the Youngdong branch of the National Bank, the defendant stated that the defendant would exchange the above bill with one million won in cash and another promissory note with the face value of 2 million won in exchange for the above bill, if he returns the above bill to the bearer of the above bearer of the bill, which is demanded to pay the face value, since one promissory note with the face value of 3 million won in the face value of the issuance of the non-indicted 2 Co., Ltd. which the person works as the regular director at the waiting room of the branch office of the Youngdong branch office of the National Bank, and that the fact that he escaped and received it

Therefore, by comparing the evidence at the time of the first instance trial with the records, there is only a suspect's protocol and victim's statement about the above defendant prepared as evidence consistent with the above facts. However, according to the above court records, the above defendant's statement was not prepared as evidence of 300,000 won or less (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80, Sept. 16, 1980; 40,000 won or less than 340,000 won, or more than 50,000 won, or more than 50,000 won, or more than 50,000 won, or more than 50,000 won, which was delivered to the defendant's new statement of 40,000 won or more (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80, Sept. 16, 1980; 200,000 won or more than 50,000 won.)

4. Therefore, the Defendants’ final appeal is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal to reverse and remand the judgment below.

Justices Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Justice)