[1] The elements for establishing a crime of violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that the defendant cannot be held liable for a violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, in case where the check holder presented a check to collect the obligation of the company jointly and severally guaranteed by the defendant when the check holder issued a blank check to secure the obligation of the defendant and repaid the entire obligation, but failed to receive a refund of the check

[1] The crime of violating Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established when a person who issued a check predicts that the check will not be paid at the fixed date for presentation due to the shortage of deposit, etc., and such expectation is not unpaid, and the circumstance leading up to the issuance of the check or the circumstance leading up to the impossibility of paying the check, etc., can not be exempted from liability solely on the basis of the fact that there are internal reasons such as the special agreement prohibiting the presentation of payment, or the circumstance leading up to the issuance of the check. However, if there were any special circumstances or there was a belief that the check will not be paid at the time of the issuance, and there was a justifiable reason to believe that the check will not be paid.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that the defendant cannot be held liable for violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act in case where the check holder issued a blank check to secure the defendant's individual's obligation and the check was presented to pay the check in order to secure the defendant's obligation but the check was not returned

[1] Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act / [2] Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1207 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 3039) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 82Do3239 delivered on April 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 930) Supreme Court Decision 85Do1862 delivered on December 24, 1985 (Gong1986, 359), Supreme Court Decision 85Do1518 delivered on March 8, 198 (Gong198, 718), Supreme Court Decision 94Do1799 delivered on November 8, 194 (Gong194, 3313), Supreme Court Decision 9Do309 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1994, 197; 194Do30949 delivered on April 29, 209)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 9No281 delivered on April 27, 2000

All appeals are dismissed.

1. If a person who issued a check predicts that the check will not be paid at the fixed date for presentation due to the shortage of deposits, etc. and issues the check, the crime of violation of Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established, and its predictability is not unpaid, and the circumstance leading up to the issuance of the check or the circumstance leading up to the non-payment of the check cannot be exempted from liability solely on the ground that there are internal reasons such as the special agreement prohibiting the presentation of payment, or the circumstance leading up to the issuance of the check. However, if there was a belief that the check would not be presented at the time of the issuance, or there was any special reason to believe that the check would not be paid on the fixed date for the said reason, it shall not be liable (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1207, Sept. 22, 1992).

With respect to the facts charged in violation of the Illegal Check Control Act in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant, in order to secure the defendant's obligation arising from the transaction at discount of the defendant's personal bills, the court below held that the defendant was not liable for violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act due to the payment of the check to the above mutual savings and finance company in order to secure the defendant's obligation arising from the transaction at discount of the non-indicted mutual savings and finance company; the defendant's obligation to the above mutual savings and finance company was fully repaid; the defendant established the non-indicted mutual savings and finance company and entered into a new discount agreement with the above mutual savings and finance company in the name of the above company with the non-indicted mutual savings and finance company; and the defendant should return the check to the defendant; therefore, the above check must be returned to the defendant; and the defendant who acquired the above mutual savings and finance company's obligation to pay the above company's obligation to the non-indicted mutual savings and finance company was not foreseeable; therefore, it did not err in the misapprehension of the evidence or the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor.

2. The court below is justified in finding the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Control of Illegal Checks Nos. 1 and 2 in its holding, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or misapprehension of the legal principle, as alleged in the Defendant’s grounds of appeal. Therefore,

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)