(a) In cases where a promissory note is issued with the intent of deception, the defrauded;

B. If the issuer submits false funds to a promissory note, the nature of deception against the bank

A. In the issuance of a bill, if the defendant had the intent to avoid the payment of the bill by submitting the recipient system from the beginning to the date of the issuance of the bill, and if it was pretended as if it were a bill to be hidden and normally paid, the issuance of the bill would induce the payee or its subsequent holders.

B. In a promissory note with the place of payment of a bank, the submission by the recipient of the bank is merely a declaration of intent to revoke the entrustment of payment to the bank by the issuer. Accordingly, the bank must refuse the payment of the presented bill, and the bank cannot refuse the revocation of the entrustment of payment based on the determination of the truth of the occurrence of the cause for revocation of the entrustment of payment. Therefore, even if the issuer submits the so-called receipt of the bill as if the bill was stolen, it cannot be deemed that the submission by the recipient of the check-up and the act of disposal of property regarding the payment of the bill was made by deceiving the bank

(a) Article 347 of the Criminal Act; Article 347 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Article 43 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act; Article 32 of

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 83No157 delivered on May 6, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. The facts charged in the crime of fraud are that the defendant issued one promissory note with the face value of 3,00,000,000 won in the name of the defendant to the non-indicted Song Young-young, and the payment place on June 18, 1981 at the Han-il Bank Gwangju branch of the payment place on the date of payment, and the above bank was submitted to the original bank at the time of the payment, and the payment of the bill was refused, thereby avoiding payment equivalent to the above amount of the bill and acquiring pecuniary profits equivalent to the above amount. Thus, although the statement in the facts charged in this case does not specify who the defrauded is the victim, it is interpreted to the effect that the defendant had the intent to escape payment of the bill by submitting the original document to the victim, but it is the bill that would be concealed and normally paid, thereby inducing the payee or the subsequent holder by issuing the bill.

However, according to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, the defendant issued the above bill as the price for the new issue ordered to the non-indicted Young-young, but the above Song Young-young supplied only the goods equivalent to 200,000 won out of the price for the new issue until the due date for the payment of the bill, and as such, the defendant notification in advance to the above Song Young-young and submitted the withdrawal of the bill to the bank entrusting the payment of the bill. Thus, it is clear that the defendant could not be deemed to have attempted to escape the payment of the bill by deceiving the payee or the subsequent holder from the original issuance of the bill. Thus, there is no proof of crime.

In addition, even though the summary of the facts charged is deemed to be the intent of deceiving a bank entrusted with the payment of a bill by means of pretending to be stolen even though the defendant did not accept the above bill, and thus, it is merely an expression of intent of the issuer to cancel the entrustment of payment with the bank, and thus, the bank must refuse the payment of the presented bill, and the bank shall not refuse the revocation of the entrustment of payment with the determination of the true fact that the fraudulent act, which is the reason for cancellation of the entrustment of payment, is the submission of the bill by deceiving the bank as the submission of the so-called letter of intent, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the defendant has taken property action with respect to the payment of the bill by deceiving the bank.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged in the crime of fraud of this case is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles of the Bill Act or the rules of evidence.

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

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)