Whether the issuer of a blank check is liable for the violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, and the scope of such liability, where the sum of the blank check has been unjustly filled up and the payment has been refused.

Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that "the person who issues or prepares a check" shall be the subject of the so-called crime of the issuance of insolvent checks. In the event that the blank check's amount is unjustly supplemented, at least within the scope of supplement, the issuer of a blank check shall not supplement the amount. Thus, the issuer of a blank check falls under the category of "the person who issues a check" under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, even though abuse of supplement rights constitutes the crime of forging securities, the act of improper supplement and correction cannot change its conclusion because it constitutes the crime of forging securities. However, the amount exceeding the supplement rights cannot be the same as that of the issuer of a blank check, and therefore, the issuer shall not be held liable for the crime of violating the Illegal Check Control Act even to the amount exceeding the supplement rights.

Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Hong Hong-soo

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 94No1741 delivered on August 16, 1994

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

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the scope of the right to supplement the check of this case was limited to KRW 100,00,000, the court below acknowledged that the non-indicted Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.") refused payment as a result of stating KRW 238,962,015, the amount exceeding the scope of the supplement right. The court below determined that the non-indicted Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.")’s legislative purpose of the Illegal Check Control Act is to regulate the issuance of illegal checks and thereby to ensure the security of the people’s economic life and the function of checks, which are valuable securities, and even if the blank Check was unjustly corrected beyond the scope of the supplement right, the check is not an invalid check under the Check Control Act, but can be asserted against the holder if it was malicious or grossly negligent. In this case, the defendant was subject to a disposition of transaction suspension from another transaction due to the aggravation of financial resources, and the defendant cannot escape from payment of the entire amount of the check.

2. However, Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that "the person who issues or prepares a check" shall be the subject of the crime of the so-called crime of the issuance of a default check. In the event that the blank check's face amount is unjustly supplemented, at least the amount of the blank check shall be filled by the issuer of the blank check within the scope of the right to supplement, so the issuer of the blank check shall be "the person who issues the check" under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, and even though the act of improper supplement by abusing the right to supplement shall not change its conclusion because it constitutes a crime of the

However, with respect to the amount exceeding the supplementary right, the issuer cannot be deemed to be the same as the amount supplemented by such amount, and therefore, it cannot be said that the issuer cannot be charged with the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act even with respect to the amount exceeding the supplementary right against the issuer of a blank check.

In this case, according to the facts duly established by the court below, although the scope of the supplementary right is limited to KRW 100,00,000,000, the check of this case has been unjustly filled up to KRW 238,962,015, and if the facts are identical, the defendant's liability for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act shall be limited to the scope of the supplementary right.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to the whole amount unjustly supplemented by the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore there is a reason to discuss.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)