Cases where the facts constituting the elements of Article 2 of the Short-Term Finance Business Act are not specified.

According to Article 2 (1) of the Short-Term Finance Business Act, the short-term financing business is engaged in the issuance of bills and other debt certificates with maturity within six months, and discount, trading, acceptance, and guarantee of bills. Thus, in the middle of May 1981, the bank in the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant in his management first purchased from the defendant in his first instance from the defendant in his first instance on May 1, 1981 without the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy, and the bank in the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant in his first instance from March 1, 1979 to October 1, 1981, sold four copies of the blank bill to the defendant in the name of the non-indicted in his first instance (the second instance) as well as the sale of 300,000 won for each of the short-term financing businesses from March 1, 1979 to October 1, 1981.

Article 2 of the Short-Term Finance Business Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 1 and Prosecutor (Defendant 2 and 3)

Attorney Lee Young-su, Kim Tae-tae, and Cho Jong-tae

Seoul High Court Decision 82No1600, 82No466 delivered on August 31, 1982

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant 1 shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 2 and 3 is dismissed.

First, we examine Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal on the conflict of interest and Kim Tae-tae.

1. Ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, based on the macroscopic evidence, shall be deemed as follows: (a) the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance opened a political party in the name of the non-indicted 1's main office in Jeonnam-si, Jeonnam-do, with the non-indicted 1, and opened a political party branch office in the name of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City; (b) around July 1980; (c) the date of payment was determined after the date of payment; and (d) the non-indicted 1's promissory notes in the name of the non-indicted 1 in the name of the non-indicted 1 were purchased from the third party in good faith; and (e) the non-indicted 1's purchase of goods from the third party in the name of the non-indicted 1 in the name of the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 3's purchase of the goods at the fixed date of payment; (e.g., the above 1'scopic book value was issued from the above 6.

However, the defendant denies the above facts, and it is difficult to prove it only by the statement at Kim Jong-chul, Kim Jong-sik, and the prosecutor's office's office of the victim of this case. Moreover, according to the statement in the letter of default on the preparation of the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank which is bound by 165-166 investigation records, only two copies of the bill in the attached Table No. 1 (2) can be confirmed as default, and according to the statement in the collection status of the bill No. 1 which is bound by 168-170 of the investigation records, it is difficult to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, and it cannot be produced any other materials proving the above facts.

In conclusion, the court below has a reason to discuss the facts in that it violated the rules of evidence, did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, or did not go through the evidence.

2. Ground of appeal No. 4

In full view of the evidence at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, it shall be sufficient to recognize the crime of forging private documents and uttering, and it cannot be said that there is any error of mistake of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and therefore there is no reason to

3. Ground of appeal No. 5

The judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, as cited by the defendant, recognized that the bank in the name of the defendant 2 purchased from the defendant 3 in the name of the non-indicted 3 from the middle of May 1981 at the top of the defendant's management location in Gwangju City, Gwangju City, sold 4 of a blank promissory note in the amount of KRW 300,00 per sheet between the non-indicted 2 and October 1, 1981, and that the defendant 3, Lee Jong-young, and the non-indicted 170 of a promissory note in the name of the non-indicted 1, 1, 100,000 or KRW 40,00 per sheet and operated a short-term financial business in the name of the defendant 3, the non-indicted 23 (1) and (3) (1) of the Short-term Finance Business Act apply to this case.

Article 3(1) of the Short-Term Finance Business Act provides that a short-term financing business shall not be operated without the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy except as otherwise provided for in other Acts. Article 23(1) provides that a short-term financing business shall be punished for the violation of the above Article 3. Article 2 of the above Act provides that a short-term financing business refers to the issuance of bills and other bonds with maturity maturity within six months, and the issuance of bills, discount, sale, acceptance, and guarantee of bills. Thus, the above decision of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles of the Short-term Finance Business Act, which states that a defendant engaged in a short-term financing business, and thus, it does not meet the reasons.

2. We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal as to Defendant 2 and 3.

Examining various evidence based on the records of fact-finding conducted by the court below, the court below is just in holding that there is no evidence that Defendant 3 conspireds to acquire another person's property by taking advantage of the correction number of the non-indicted 3 and the bill of exchange with the non-indicted 2 as to each habitual fraud of the indictment No. 1 and No. 3 against Defendant 2 against the non-indicted 3, and that such bill of exchange was distributed to the above correction number or the non-indicted 2 through the defendant et al. is not a co-offender of the above correction number or the non-indicted 2, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, and the prosecutor'

The appeal as to the forgery of private document by Defendant 1 and the part on its uttering is without merit, but the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 5 as to the part on habitual fraud and the violation of the Short-Term Finance Business Act are with merit, and the decision as to the remaining grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 as to this part of the grounds of appeal are not reversed. Thus, all of the charges of habitual fraud, violation of the Short-Term Finance Business Act, forgery of private document, and uttering against the defendant are prosecuted for concurrent crimes. Thus, the part of the judgment below as to the defendant is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court, and the appeal as to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by the prosecutor is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)