logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.06.15 2016노3488
부정수표단속법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The household checks, which the lower court found guilty of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, were issued by N Co., Ltd. for business necessity by N Co., Ltd., and this court rendered a comprehensive prohibition order against the foregoing legal entity on October 5, 2015 under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Liability Rehabilitation Act”), and even if the said household checks were not paid due to the shortage of deposits, the said household checks were rejected.

Even if there is no violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(a) Where the court has taken a preservative measure prohibiting repayment, etc. to the debtor pursuant to Article 43(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, the paying bank of a check shall, as a matter of course, refuse payment on the ground of the above preservative measure, regardless of whether a deposit exists.

Therefore, if a check was presented after a preservative measure prohibiting repayment under the above law was taken against the drawer of the check, the bank, even if the bank refused to pay, "non-transaction" or "non-deposit" were presented.

As long as the restriction on payment under the above law must be complied with, the issuing act of the check does not constitute an offense against Article 2(2) of the Regulation on Illegal Check Act [see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do12457, Jan. 28, 2010; 90Do1317, Aug. 14, 1990 (the case where there was a preservative measure against repayment under the former Company Reorganization Act)]. (b) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted by the court below, the Defendant entered into a check contract with the branch of the Nong Bank on March 23, 2006; (2) the NF corporation was established on June 23, 2010 but did not conclude a check contract again in its name; and (3) the representative director of the corporation.

arrow