The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In this case, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal, but the court of final appeal may render an ex officio decision even if the appellate brief is not included in the appellate brief pursuant to Article 384 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in the case where there are grounds under subparagraphs 1 through 3 of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the ground for final appeal claiming

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do11407, Jan. 28, 2010). Article 4 of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that “The purpose of avoiding a disposition of payment or suspension of transaction of a check amount” is to exempt a person liable for payment of a check amount or a person subject to a disposition of suspension of transaction is limited to the issuer. In light of the fact that the person who is not an issuer is limited to the issuer, the person who is not an issuer can not be the subject of a crime of violation of Article 4 of the Control of Illegal Check Act, and cannot commit the crime in the form of indirect offense by using an issuer

Even in cases where a check is issued by borrowing a check in the name of a third party, the check amount is paid in the current account by presentation of payment of the check, or the person subject to a disposition of suspension of transaction is the name of the issuer of the check, and even if the check is paid, the person whose amount of the check is paid or the person subject to a disposition of suspension of transaction is not considered to be the subject of a violation of Article 4 of the Regulation of Illegal Check Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5939, Jan. 24, 2003). According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment and the record, the Defendant, at the end of February, 201, set forth a statement of the number of units per unit (hereinafter “instant sheet”) in the name of the representative director F of C, a stock company, with a face value of KRW 10 million in the name of the representative director F.