Whether false entry of the address of the drawee of the bill constitutes the crime of preparing false securities

Even though the address of the endorser is not the requirement of endorsement, and the address of the endorser was falsely stated, it does not affect the legal relationship of the promissory note, unless it is the case where the identity of the endorser is harmed and it is not known who is the endorser. Therefore, matters that do not affect the rights of the promissory note are not the crime of preparation of false securities under Article 216 of the Criminal Act even if they are falsely stated.

Article 216 of the Criminal Act, Articles 77(1)1 and 13(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292 Form865 Decided February 24, 1960

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No6117 delivered on January 19, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Articles 77(1)1 and 13(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, the endorsement of a promissory note is required to be signed and sealed by the endorser, and there is no provision regarding the address of the endorser. Thus, the address of the endorser in the name and seal of the endorsement of a promissory note is merely a material to specify the endorser himself. Thus, even if the address of the endorser was falsely stated in the name and seal of the endorser, it does not affect the legal relationship of the promissory note unless the address of the endorser cannot be identified because it harms the identity and identity of the endorser, and it does not constitute a crime of preparation of false securities under Article 216 of the Criminal Act even if the matters that do not affect the rights of the promissorysory note are falsely stated in the promissory note, and there is no violation of the law of maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance as to the act of the defendant with the name and seal of the endorser as stated in the bill of indictment.

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

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)