The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, from May 23, 2008, was a person running “C” in “C,” and (b) from May 23, 2008 to May 26-8, 2008, opened a company bank’s integrative storage and a family deposit account and traded household checks.

On November 2, 2012, the Defendant issued one check number D, face value “C,00,000”, and the date of issuance “C” under the name of the Defendant, and the check holder issued one check under the name of the Defendant. On December 12, 2012, on December 13, 2012, the check holder presented the check payment to the said bank.

However, the defendant did not pay for the shortage of deposit.

Along with this, the Defendant issued a check in the amount equivalent to KRW 6 million in total at face value over two occasions, such as the attached list of crimes, and the holder of the check presented a payment proposal within the payment deadline, but did not pay it due to the shortage of deposits.

2. We examine the judgment. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Illegal Check Control Act, and the person who issues or prepares a check pursuant to Article 2 (4) of the same Act cannot collect the check or institute a public prosecution against the express intent of the check holder. According to the records, each check can be known that it was recovered by the defendant. Thus, this part of the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.