logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.12.18 2013고정3433
부정수표단속법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, while engaging in the distribution business, entered into a check contract with the Korea Standards Bank on September 26, 1995, and offered a bank check transaction with the bank on June 13, 2013, that “the check number D, face value D, 3,000,000 won, and August 19, 2013,” issued one copy of the bank bank check in the name of the Defendant at the second basement C warehouse located under the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B, and presented it within the time limit for payment, but did not receive the bank shortage or suspension of transaction.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each accusation book and each family check copy;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 2 (2) and (1) of the same Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The dismissal part of the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the facts charged was issued one copy of the household check listed in the judgment during the transaction of the household check as shown in the judgment, at the same time and place as indicated in the attached Table No. 3, which was presented within the time and place of payment, but the holder did not receive the shortage of deposit or the suspension of transaction.

2. This part of the facts charged is an offense falling under Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act and can not be prosecuted in cases where the check is recovered pursuant to Article 2(4) of the same Act. Since it is apparent that the Defendant recovered the check around November 14, 2013, which was after the prosecution of this case, around November 14, 2013, it is obvious that the check was recovered, this part of the prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 3

arrow