logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2014.10.30 2014고정197
부정수표단속법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

As of November 28, 1997, the Defendant opened a high-ranking branch and current account of the former North Korean bank and traded checks.

On October 4, 2013, the Defendant issued one copy of the household check, which is the “3,00,000 won” at par value”, “3,00,000,000”, “B”, and “all North Korean bank’s salary class” as of the date of issuance at the Jeonju movable property Dong, and presented it to the said bank during the period for presentation for payment by the holders, but did not receive the deposit shortage.

From that time until January 16, 2014, the Defendant issued four copies of the household check equivalent to KRW 12,000,000 in total as shown in the attached list of crimes from that time to that time, and each possessor presented the payment to the above bank within the payment period, but failed to pay the deposit shortage.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. Article 3 (1), Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act applicable to the crime;

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

1. The Defendant, as of November 28, 1997, opened a high-ranking branch of the previous North Korean bank and a current account and traded checks. The Defendant, as of November 28, 1997, was charged with the dismissal of prosecution under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act.

After issuing two copies of household checks equivalent to KRW 6,00,000 in the attached Table No. 1,20,000, the Defendant paid to the above bank within the period for presentation of payment, but did not pay for the shortage of deposit.

Judgment

The facts charged of this case are cases where the person who issued or prepared a check collects the check (Article 2(4) of the Illegal Check Control Act), and the records show that the defendant collected each check of this case after the prosecution of this case is instituted. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow