The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On June 25, 1984, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant entered into a check contract with the Daejeon Branch of a Commercial Bank under the name of the Defendant, and has traded a check of the number of shares.

Around December 195, the Defendant issued a check number D, face value “10,000,000”, “10,000”, and the date of issuance “30, 195,” in C’ of the Defendant’s operation in Daejeon-si, Daejeon-si.

On December 30, 1995, the check holder presented the check payment to the above bank on December 30, 1995, which was within the time limit for presentment of payment, but the defendant did not pay the deposit shortage, and issued six copies of the check total of the face value of KRW 99,627,00 at that time, and presented payment from December 30, 195 to February 5, 1996, the check holder did not pay the shortage of deposit.

2. Article 2 (2) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act provides that a check shall be issued in cases where the person who issued the check fails to pay it on the date for presentation due to the suspension of deposit transactions after issuing the check. Meanwhile, Article 2 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the date of presentment" means the date on which the check is presented under Article 28 (2) of the Check Act and the date on which the check is presented for payment to a financial institution within the period of presentment of payment under Article 29 of the Check Act. Thus, the illegal check under Article 2 (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act requires that the check is presented within the period of presentment of payment under the Check Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3099, Sept. 5, 2003).

Ultimately, the facts charged in the instant case are without proof of crime.