logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.12.10 2013고정1232
부정수표단속법위반
Text

All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.

Reasons

1. From June 28, 1993, the Defendant entered into a check contract with the Ulsan Bank of Daegu and the Defendant from around the day of June 28, 1993, and has traded the check number.

A. On September 10, 2012, the Defendant issued a check number D at the “C” office operated by the Defendant in Kimhae-si, a check number, the date of issuance, and the check amount “three million won” in the name of the Defendant.

On November 12, 2012, the holder of the check presented the payment order to the above bank on the date of presentment for payment.

However, the defendant did not pay for the shortage of deposit.

B. On September 20, 2012, the Defendant issued a check number “E”, “E” on the date of issuance,” and “five million won” under the name of the Defendant, which became the “E” and “five million won” on the check amount at the above office.

On November 30, 2012, the holder of the check presented the payment order to the above bank on November 30, 2012.

However, the defendant did not pay for the shortage of deposit.

C. On September 25, 2012, the Defendant issued a check number “F”, “F” on the date of issuance,” and “three million won” under the name of the Defendant, which became the “three million won” in the said office.

On November 26, 2012, the holder of the check presented the payment order to the above bank on November 26, 2012.

However, the Defendant did not pay for the shortage of deposits.

On October 5, 2012, the Defendant issued a check number “G”, the date of issuance, and the check amount “five million won” under the name of the Defendant, which became the check number “G”, “B”, and “five million won” at the above office.

On December 5, 2012, the holder of the check presented the payment order to the above bank on December 5, 2012.

However, the defendant did not pay for the shortage of deposit.

2. The judgment is based on Article 2(2) and (1) of the Illegal Check Control Act, which is a crime falling under Article 2(2) and (1) of the same Act.

arrow