(a) Whether a promissory note which has not been paid due to the issuer’s shortage of funds may also be the object of fraud;

B. Whether the confession of the co-defendant as an accomplice is included in the confession of the defendant under Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act (negative)

(a) A promissory note itself is an instrument of property value and, even if the bill is not paid at the maturity, at the time of payment, its utility is not extinguished in exercising its right of recourse against endorsers, drawer and other parties liable for the bill, and thus, it is also the object of fraud even if it is not paid at the place of payment due to the lack of funds of the

B. As the confession of the defendant under Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not include the statement of the co-defendant, the co-defendant's statement as an accomplice can be used as evidence in recognizing the facts constituting the crime against other co-defendant, and whether it is a reinforced evidence is entrusted to the free trial of the judge.

A. Article 347 of the Criminal Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 63Do185 delivered on July 25, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 68Do231 delivered on April 16, 1968

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 84No6296,85No985 decided Apr. 12, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. As to the 1st page (defation of Promissory Notes):

A promissory note itself is valuable securities with property and is not paid at the maturity, but is not effective in exercising the right of recourse against endorsers, drawer, and other debtors, so even if a promissory note is not paid at the place of payment due to the lack of funds of the issuer, it shall be subject to fraud. In light of the records, even if the check account transaction at the bank, which is the place of payment, is terminated due to the lack of funds of the issuer at the time of delivery, the check account transaction at the bank, which is the place of payment, is already terminated due to the lack of funds of the issuer at the time of delivery. However, even if the check account transaction at the bank is terminated due to the lack of money of the issuer at the time of delivery, it is recognized that the victim (the victim at the time was aware that the check was insolvent at the time of delivery) was received and received and received without the intent to exchange it, so it constitutes the so-called crime of acceptance of a promissory note, and even if the defendant paid part of the amount to the victim by deceptiveation, it is justified in the judgment of the defendant.

2. With respect to the second (agency Fraud):

Since the confession of the defendant under Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not include the statement of the co-defendant as an accomplice, the statement of co-defendant as an accomplice can be used as evidence in recognizing the facts constituting the offense against other co-defendants, and the requisite part of the supporting evidence is entrusted to the judge's free evaluation of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 63Do185 delivered on July 25, 1963: Supreme Court Decision 68Do231 delivered on April 16, 1968). The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, which decided that the defendant was also co-defendant of the crime of agency fraud of this case, was used as evidence for guilt of the defendant on the ground of consistent statement since the investigative agency of the court below which decided that the defendant was also co-defendant of the crime of agency fraud of this case, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the confession of the co-defendant, as pointed out in this case, and further there is no evidence supporting this evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)