The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, according to the reasoning of the appeal, F, the possession of the instant check, was aware of the fact that the said check was not paid.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the check has lost its function as a distribution security subject to the Illegal Check Control Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Judgment

In full view of the legislative purport of the Illegal Check Control Act and Article 2 of the Illegal Check Control Act, in a case where the requirements of the check as at the time of issuance are corrected lastly, it shall be the object of the violation of Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act according to the corrected contents. However, if the check was corrected under the understanding of the holder who is sufficiently aware that the check would not be paid at the time of the disposition of suspension of transaction, if the check was corrected with the date of issuance on the check and the face value, etc., then it is difficult to regard it as a check with a distribution function that Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act intends to protect.

On the foregoing premise, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged in detail, stating the grounds for determination on the aforementioned premise.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the F was subject to the disposition of suspension of transaction of the check of this case, and even if it was presented with the check of this case, it would not be paid, it was corrected the issue date and face value of the check of this case through consultation with the defendant, and it was repeated once more than four years at short intervals, and as a result, it can be recognized that the entry and shape of the check of this case can not be confirmed easily with the issue date and face value. In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just.