The nature of fraud in the event that all funds received at a discount of a promissory note with a forged endorsement are used for the operating funds of the company (affirmative)

If an endorsement portion of a promissory note is forged and received money in the manner of a bill discount, the fraud is established at that time, and the money thereafter has been remitted to the Nonindicted Company through Ra and all of the money was used as operational funds of the said Company, it cannot be said that it is nothing more than an ex post facto act after the establishment of the crime of fraud and it does not acquire this money.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorneys Jeon Soo-hwan et al.

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 84No3094 delivered on November 21, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 1

Defendant 2 and 3’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal and Defendant 4’s grounds of appeal

If evidence is collected at the time of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of the defendant, etc. at the time of the original trial, and there is no such misunderstanding of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit, incomplete hearing, and any misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence.

The debate over the lawsuit argues that the court below's misapprehension of the legal principles as to the establishment of an accomplice relation or the criminal intent of fraud, etc., or the fact that the endorsement of the Promissory Notes in this case from prior to or after the crime was committed cannot be delivered to the records, and that there was no thought that the defendant et al. did not think that the non-indicted Gain Industrial Co., Ltd.'s affiliated company of the Repact Group would make a default on the payment of taxes. There is no complaint for the establishment of the crime committed by the defendant et al. The argument on the appeal is without merit.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by the above attorney Jeon Soo-soo

Since the crime of fraud is established when Defendant 4 received money from Nonindicted Party 4 in the method of discount of promissory note, by presenting the promissory note in which the endorsement part of this case was forged, and thereafter, remitted money to the said company’s operation funds in Seoul, even though the money was used for the said company’s operation funds, it is merely an ex post facto act after the establishment of the crime of fraud, and it cannot be said that the Defendant, etc. obtained money from said Defendant, etc. on this basis, even though it was merely an ex post facto act after the establishment of the crime of fraud.

In such a case as the novel theory, even if the crime of Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act is not established and the crime of Article 347 (2) of the same Act is established in the case where the above Korea Overseas Industries Corporation, which is a third party, received property from the said Korea, and the crime of Article 347 (1) of the same Act is established, since the crime of Article 347 (2) of the same Act and the crime of Article 347 (2) of the same Act are not identical to the punishment and they are not affected by the conclusion of the judgment, it shall not be employed as an independent opinion. The

3. Therefore, all appeals by the defendant et al. are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)