Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 64Da1308 decided Sep. 28, 1964 (Court of First Instance)

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

In light of the original judgment, it is clear that the Defendants were acquitted on the grounds that the Defendants issued the check at issue in this case on September 30, 1963, October 12, 20, and 11,10 of the same year on September 30, 1963, and on November 22, 1963, and that the Bank was suspended from trading from the Gwangju Bank of Korea where the Bank was a bank due to the lack of deposit in the original judgment, and that the check was interpreted to have already been decided as illegal checks on the date when the holders of the check were suspended from trading on the date when the check presented for payment to the Bank, and that the Defendants’ liability for exercising the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act was pardoned under the ordinary amnesty promulgated by Cabinet Ordinance No. 1678.

I think, it is interpreted that the crime of the person who issued or prepared the illegal check as referred to in Article 4 (1) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established at the time when the bank issued the check, recognizing the reasons as referred to in each subparagraph of Article 2 of the same Act. Thus, the court below judged that the number of this check is suspended from transaction from the bank on November 22, 1963, after the issuance of the check, and that it is a check issued after being subject to a disposition of suspension of transaction from the bank under subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Illegal Check Control Act. The court below judged that the defendants' act of violation of Article 4 (1) and (3) and subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Illegal Check Control Act cannot be established only when the check is already suspended until the check is issued at the time of the issuance of the check, and even if the check was already suspended from the bank on the date of the issuance of the check, it is clear that the defendants' act of violation of the Act was exempted from the ordinary order on the date of the issuance of the check.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices under Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court