[1] Whether the name and seal or seal is necessarily required even when the issue date or par value of a lawfully issued check is corrected by meeting the requirements for name and seal

[2] The case holding that the number of shares per issue date and the correction of par value are included in the application of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

[1] In the so-called check act such as issuance, endorsement, guarantee, and payment guarantee under the Check Act, the name and seal of the check act is required, but the name and seal of the check act as mentioned above are different from the act of ex post facto correction. Thus, even if the date of issuance or face value of the check which is lawfully issued upon meeting the requirements of the name and seal are corrected, the corrective act shall be deemed valid only when the name and seal or seal is corrected at the place of correction. Meanwhile, the legislative purpose of the Illegal Check Control Act is to guarantee the economic stability of the people and the function of the check which is a securities for distribution, and even if it is not a valid check under the Check Act, if it is distributed without any influence on the function of the check as a securities, it shall not be excluded from the subject of Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the number of shares per unit with the date of issuance and the face value corrected by unmanned is included in the subject of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

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

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Do340 delivered on May 10, 1983 (Gong1983, 986), Supreme Court Decision 83Do1093 delivered on September 13, 1983 (Gong1983, 1537), Supreme Court Decision 93Do1835 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 3013)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 94No936, 95No218 delivered on April 28, 1995

The non-guilty part of the judgment below shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with regard to the facts in violation of the Illegal Check Control Act that "the defendant issued the above 10,00,000 won at the defendant's office on January 3, 193 at 193 at 00,00,000 won per 10,000, and issued 10,000 won per 30,000,000 won per 10,000,000 won per 9,000 won per 10,000,000 won per 9,000,000 won per 10,000,000 won per 10,000 won per 9,000 won per 9,000,000 won per 10,000,000 won per 10,000 won per 10,000 won per 9,000 won per 1,000,00 won per 3.

2. In the so-called check act, such as issuance, endorsement, guarantee, and payment guarantee under the Check Act, the name and seal of the party member is required to do so, and the name and seal of the party member does not include any unmanned seal here, but it is distinguishable from the above act of ex post correction of the check and the check. It is distinguishable from the act of ex post correction of the check and the check. Thus, even if the date of issuance or face value of the lawfully issued check meet the requirements for the name and seal are corrected, the corrective act is not valid. Meanwhile, since the legislative purpose of the Illegal Check Control Act is to guarantee the economic stability of the people and the function of the check, which is a distribution security, even if it is not valid under the Check Act, if it is distributed without any influence on the function of the circulation securities, it is not applicable from Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, Article 308 of the same Act, and Article 39 of the same Act, 198, 300Do39389, Nov. 13, 1998.

According to the records, the defendant completed his name and seal lawfully in the issuer column in issuing the original check of this case. At the time of the first correction, when the date of issuance of the above check of this case and the face value are corrected, the defendant affixed a corrected seal to the correction place. However, at the time of the second correction, the defendant affixed a seal instead of the corrected place only when the date of issuance of the above check of this case and the face value are corrected. On the other hand, at the time of the second correction after the second correction, there is room to view that the correction on the front of the check of this case linked the above deletion line and the seal was affixed to the deletion line for the second correction. In fact, the payment rejection was not made on the ground that the correction person who affixed the seal on the front of the check of this case had affixed a seal other than the seal on the bank at the time of the second correction, but on the ground that the second correction was valid, the payment rejection was made on the ground that the second correction was made on the premise that the second correction was made.

Therefore, the check of this case is issued as a valid check that satisfies the requirements under the Check Act by the original defendant, and even if the defendant corrected the issue date and the face value by the unmanned at the time of the second correction after the correction, the correction cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course. Rather, even if the correction was made at the corrected place, the check of this case actually performed the function as a distribution securities in accordance with the corrected wording, so it shall be deemed that this is included in the application of Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act.

In the end, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the correction of the check language and the subject of the above provision, and such illegality has influenced the judgment of this case. Therefore, it is obvious that this error has influenced the judgment of this case.

3. Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)