Whether a person who is not an issuer of a check may become the subject of a false report under Article 4 of the Illegal Check Control Act or commit the same crime in the form of an indirect crime (negative)

Article 4 of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that the purpose of the Illegal Check Control Act is to regulate and punish the issuance of illegal checks (Article 1), and Article 4 of the same Act provides that "the purpose is to avoid the payment of the amount of a check or the suspension of transaction" rather than "the purpose of avoiding the suspension of payment of the amount of a check or the suspension of transaction". In light of the fact that the person liable for the payment of the amount of a check or the person subject to the suspension of transaction is limited to the issuer, a person who is not the issuer can not be the subject of the crime of false report as prescribed by the above Act, and the crime of false report shall not be committed in the form of indirect crime by using

Article 4 of the Illegal Check Control Act, Article 34 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No264, 2264 decided May 8, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act due to false declaration, the court below held that the purpose of the Illegal Check Control Act is to regulate and punish the issuance of illegal checks (Article 1), and that Article 4 of the Illegal Check Control Act, which provides for the crime of false declaration, requires "the purpose of avoiding the payment of the amount of a check or the disposition of suspension of transaction" not "the purpose of avoiding the disposition of suspension of payment of the amount of a check or transaction", and that the person liable for the payment of the amount of a check or the person subject to the disposition of suspension of transaction is limited exclusively to the issuer, the person who is not the issuer can not be the principal agent of the crime of false declaration under Article 4 of the Illegal Check Control Act, and that the person who is not the issuer cannot be the principal agent of the crime of false declaration in the form of indirect crime by using the issuer who has not intentionally reported the fact that the crime of false declaration to the defendant who is not the issuer of the check in this case is not a crime of crime of violation of the law.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.