Defendant 1 and one other

The maximum number of votes shall be

Attorney Choi Jong-young et al.

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment with prison labor and fine of KRW 5,00,000, and Defendant 2 (Co-defendant in the original judgment of the Supreme Court) for each of October.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

However, with respect to Defendant 2, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

14 copies (No. 1) of a seized forged check shall be confiscated from the Defendants.

4,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

The amount equivalent to the above fine shall be provisionally paid to Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1, the Defendant is not guilty.

Defendant 1 was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny in the vice branch of the Daegu District Court on February 4, 2009 and completed the execution of the sentence in the Incheon Detention House on September 17, 2009.

1. Defendants’ criminal appearance

On October 1, 2009, the Defendants pretended as if Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 2, who was his/her chain, have taken a dynamic image to administer narcotics together, and as if Defendant 2 borrowed KRW 15 million from Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 on the spot where Nonindicted 2 was located, the Defendants promised to receive money equivalent to the above borrowed money from Nonindicted 2’s family members by threatening Nonindicted 2 to report the fact that Nonindicted 2 had been administered to the investigative agency.

2. Defendant 1

(a) Purchasing philophones;

(1) On November 22, 200, the Defendant purchased psychotropic drugs from a person whose name cannot be known at the thermal team near the subway station of subway No. 2 located in the subway No. 1 Dong, Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Land Number 2 omitted), whose capacity is psychotropic drugs at KRW 2 million, and then put them to Defendant 2 at the above 02:00 on the same day on the same day.

(2) On November 1, 2009, at around 17:00, the Defendant purchased psychotropic drugs from a person who was unable to know his name in the street near Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, from Kwikset’s service, in 2 million won, psychotropic drugs, through Kwikset’s service, and put them to Defendant 2 on the same day at around 23:00 on the same day.

(b) Forgery of a check;

At the place where Nonindicted Party 2 was located, the Defendant had the mind to prepare for the preparation by forging a 14 million won check among the 15 million won necessary for pretending that Defendant 2 lent KRW 15 million to Defendant 2.

At around 15:00 on November 6, 2009, the Defendant forged 14 copies of the cashier’s checks using a local reproduction machine for the purpose of uttering at the △k Center located in 5:7, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of uttering.

3. Medication by Defendant 2

A. On November 16, 2009, the Defendant, at around 16:00 on the first half of 200, injected with Nonindicted Party 2, after dilutioning the balon volume in the “Balebel” guest room located in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seodong (number 3 omitted) with Defendant 1, as described in the above 2-A (1).

B. At around 20:00 on November 2009, the Defendant, at the guest room, 2-A of the above Bale Balebel (water omitted), dried up with Defendant 1’s divelopon volume into drinking water and dried up with Nonindicted Party 2.

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each prosecutorial suspect examination protocol against the Defendants and Nonindicted 2

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 2, 1, and 3

1. Police seizure records;

1. Requests for appraisal;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records and investigation reports;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendant 1: Articles 60(1)3 and 4(1) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the purchase and delivery of phiphonephones, the choice of each imprisonment), and Article 5 of the Control of Illegal Check Act (amended by Act No. 10185, Mar. 24, 2010) (the provision of each check and the provision of imprisonment, and the concurrent imposition of fines)

○ Defendant 2: Articles 60(1)3 and 4(1) (a) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. and the Selection of each Imprisonment with prison labor.

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

○ Defendant 1: Article 35 of the Criminal Act (Provided, That the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act shall apply to a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That with respect to Defendant 1, the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act shall not apply.

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

○ Defendant 1: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendant 2: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account that the Defendant repented his wrong during the commission of the crime and surrenders himself to the police)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48(1)2 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

○ Defendant 1: proviso of Article 67 of the Narcotics Control Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Defendant 1: the former part of Article 6 of the Illegal Check Control Act, Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the facts charged

On November 1, 2009, at around 19:00, Defendant 1 delivered the forged checks to Defendant 2 so that it can be presented as if they were actually issued with Nonindicted 2, who was aware of the forgery.

2. Determination

Unlike the crime of uttering of forged securities, the purpose of punishment for the crime of uttering of forged securities is not only to protect the credibility of documents simply to protect the credibility of the order of the distribution of securities, but also to distribute forged securities even if the delivery was made to the person who knows that the delivery was a genuine or true securities, if the delivery was made with the awareness that the delivery was made, the act of delivery itself would prejudice the order of the distribution of securities, and thus, there is sufficient reason and necessity for punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do2492, Jun. 14, 1983, etc.). However, if the delivery and the delivery of forged securities have a relation between the accomplice and the accomplice who conspired to make profits among others, the delivery of forged securities is merely a pre-stage act to realize the crime by exercising them to others, and it cannot be deemed that the delivery of forged securities has yet been made during the exercise of the rights of the criminal (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2737, Jun. 27, 2003).

그런데, 이 사건 기록에 의하면, 피고인들을 공소외 2의 부모로부터 돈을 받아 내기 위하여 피고인 1이 피고인 2에게 돈 1,600만원을 빌려주는 것처럼 가장하고 공소외 2로부터 보증을 받아 두기로 한 사실, 그런데 피고인 1은 1,600만원을 마련할 형편이 되지 않자 사전에 피고인 2에게 수표를 복사하여 주는 것처럼 하겠다고 말한 뒤 2009. 11. 6. 15:00경 서울 영등포구 당산동 5가 7에 있는 □□카센터에서 컬러복사기를 이용하여 미리 준비한 액면 100만원권 자기앞수표1장( 수표번호생략, 발행인 △△은행)을 복사하는 방법으로 자기앞수표 총 14장을 위조하고, 위 ○○노래방에서 공소외 2가 보는 앞에서 위와 같이 위조한 수표들을 피고인 2에게 교부한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 사실이 위와 같다면, 피고인들은 서로 수표위조를 공모하였거나 위조수표를 행사하여 그 이익을 나누어 가질 것을 공모한 공범의 관계에 있다고 할 것이고, 나아가 위 수표의 위조, 행사 경위 및 위조 상태 등에 비추어 보면 피고인 2가 위 수표를 받아 공소외 2에게 행사할 것을 예정하고 있었던 것도 아니며( 피고인 1이 피고인 2에게 수표를 건네주는 시늉을 함으로써 실제 돈을 대여하는 장면을 연출하였을 뿐이다) 달리 위 위조수표의 교부행위 자체가 유가증권의 유통질서를 해할 우려가 있다고 볼만한 증거도 없다.

Thus, each of the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

interest as determined by the judge