Whether the act of filling up a blank check issued by another person constitutes an act of issuing or preparing a check under Article 2 of the Illegal Check Control Act (negative)

The Defendant’s act of lending money and completing the amount and date of issuance of a blank check issued by another person as security shall be deemed to be an exercise of the supplementary right. Since this supplementary act cannot be deemed to be an issuance or preparation of a check by specifying the supplementary act, even if the Defendant transferred the above supplementary check to another person and the check was refused to pay, the Defendant cannot be punished as a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act.

Article 2 of the Illegal Check Control Act

Defendant

A co-inspector;

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 80No8532 delivered on March 24, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. From September 197, the judgment of the court below concluded that the defendant loaned money to the Park Nam-gu from around 1977 by means of a check or bill discount for the issuance of the same Parknam-gu and the non-indicted Hong-gu. From around April 1978, the above Park Nam-gu borrowed money to the defendant at that time and borrowed money from the defendant for the check to be issued with the above Hong-gu and the amount of the issuance of the non-indicted Hong-gu. The defendant stated the amount and the date of the issuance in the blank check to the effect that it was transferred to another by filling up the amount and the date of the issuance, and then, the amount and the date of the issuance cannot be seen as the issuance or preparation of the check by using supplementary acts to the extent that the amount and the date of the issuance are supplementing the amount and the date of the issuance as an exercise of the supplementary right to the check already issued by the others.

2. We examine the record and find the above facts in light of the relation of evidence, and therefore, the theory of the lawsuit that the defendant, who does not have any current account transaction with the bank, issued the check on his own account using the check paper with the above Hong civil signature and seal affixed to him, is without merit. As above, the act of completing the amount and the date of issuance on the blank check issued by another person as above can be viewed as an exercise of the supplementary right, and the issuance or preparation of the check cannot be seen as being done by specifying this supplementary act. Thus, the decision of the court below in this purport is just and it is not possible to adopt the theory that the check should be issued or prepared as a check with different opinions.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)