The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant check was issued by the Defendant to F Co., Ltd. on March 25, 2015. Since F Co., Ltd. exercised its right to supplement and entered the amount and the issue date thereof, the Defendant does not constitute a person who issued the instant check.

2) The Defendant did not anticipate that the instant check was not paid on the date for presentation at the time of issuing the check.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that the subject of the so-called crime of issuing the check shall be the person who issues or prepares the check. In the event of supplementation of the blank check amount, the issuer of a blank check does not correspond to the supplement of the amount within the scope of the supplement right. Thus, the issuer of a blank check shall be the “person who issues the check” under Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2464, Sept. 29, 195). In light of the above legal principles, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, E operated by the defendant at the time of issuing the check of this case, is merely the right to supplement the amount equivalent to the price of the goods which was not settled with FF corporation, and FF corporation is merely the right to supplement the amount equivalent to the price of the goods which was paid at the face value of E on February 22, 2016.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(b)Article 2 Section 2.2 of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act that may arise as a result.