Whether an act of forging endorsement of a check constitutes an act of forging a check under Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act

In light of the purport of the Illegal Check Control Act with the aim of regulating and punishing the "issuance" of the illegal check and the charge of forging the securities under Article 214(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 214(2) of the Criminal Act with regard to the right and duty of the securities, the term "facing" of a check under Article 5 of the Illegal Check Control Act means only the act of issuing a check with a false name and cannot be deemed to include the act of forging the endorsement of a check.

Article 1, Article 5, of the Illegal Check Control Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul District Court (90 High Court Decision 1725)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the detention days before the sentence of the lower judgment, 65 days for Defendant 1, and 60 days for Defendant 2 shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

1. Ex officio, the court below acknowledged, for the purpose of the exercise by Defendant 1 based on the evidence of this time, that each victim's endorsement under the name of each other is forged on the back of the party unit list issued by each other as shown in the annexed sheet (1) 2, 4, and 5 of the annexed sheet of crime No. 1 as stated in the judgment, and that each victim's endorsement is forged for the purpose of the exercise by Defendant 2 as described in the annexed sheet No. 4, 5 of the annexed sheet of crime No. 2 of the annexed sheet of crime No. 1 as stated in the above. 5 of the annexed sheet of crime No. 5 of the annexed sheet of crime No. 1 as stated above.

However, in light of the purport of the above law, which aims to regulate and punish the "issuance" of illegal checks, and the fact that Article 214 (1) of the Criminal Act imposes a forgery of securities, and Article 214 (2) of the same Act imposes a forgery of the entry of the rights and obligations of securities, it means only the issuance of a check with the name of another person, and it cannot be deemed that it includes the forgery of an endorsement of a check as in this case, and therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on each Article of the illegal Check Control Act and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Therefore, the judgment of the court below regarding the defendants' grounds for appeal is omitted, and pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part concerning the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act among the judgment of the court below against the defendants as well as the part concerning the remaining criminal facts for which one sentence is imposed in relation to concurrent crimes, shall be reversed, and the defendants' criminal facts charged as a result of the violation of the above Illegal Check Control Act shall be subject to the application of Article 214(2) of the Criminal Act as to the forgery of the entry of the rights and obligations of securities ex officio without the need to go through the amendment procedures within the scope of

The same shall apply to the time of the original adjudication.

As to all the Defendants

(a) Article 214(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

(b) Articles 217 and 214(2) of the Criminal Act

(c) Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 (Defendant 1) of the Criminal Act: the penalty stipulated for the crime of forging an endorsement of the check as stated in attached Form 1 (2) with respect to Defendant 1; and the penalty stipulated for the crime of forging an endorsement of the check as stated in attached Form 2 (2) with respect to Defendant 2; the penalty for concurrent crimes with the penalty stipulated for the crime of

D. Articles 57 and 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 57 and 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Du-soon (Presiding Judge)