Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

From July 26, 1989, the Defendant entered into a check contract in the name of the new bank three branches and the Defendant from July 26, 1989, and has traded the check number.

On February 14, 2014, the Defendant issued one copy of the check number “D” office in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “E”, “5,00,000 won”, and the date of issuance “5,00,000 won” under the name of the Defendant, and issued one copy of the check number per bank under the name of the Defendant. On May 20, 2014, the check holder offered payment to the Bank on May 20, 2014, which is within the period of presentment for payment, but did not pay as a suspension of transaction.

In addition, from around that time to March 11, 2014, the Defendant issued seven copies of the check number table as indicated in attached Table 3, 5, and 10, and proposed payment to the bank within the time limit for payment by the holder of the check, but did not pay the check amount as suspension of transaction.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each accusation (including a copy of any defaulted check attached), and statutes governing notarial deeds;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment (the fact that the amount of default on the remaining check is 35 million won, the fact that this court has made a serious effort to recover damage, such as partially repaying debts, recovering a large number of votes, etc., and the fact that no particular criminal records exist shall be taken into account);

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

1. The part concerning dismissal of prosecution under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of a workhouse;

1. The summary of the facts charged was issued by the Defendant as indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and each check was presented within the period for presentment for payment, but the check was not paid due to each transaction suspension.

2. The judgment is a case in which it is impossible to institute a public prosecution when collecting a check in accordance with Article 2(4) of the Illegal Check Control Act, and the defendant recovered the above check after the prosecution of this case, and thus, the judgment is in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.