Cases of misapprehension of legal principles in the Illegal Check Control Act

If the defendant issued and delivered five copies of his own prior date check to another person for the commercial transaction of a corporation the representative director of which he is a representative director, and knowing that the check is transferred from the addressee to the other transaction line and is distributed before the date of payment, if the defendant reports to the payment bank for the purpose of evading the purpose of publication, it constitutes a false report under this Article in light of the purport of the establishment of this Act.

Article 10 of the Check Act, Article 12 of the Check Act, Article 4(1) of the Illegal Check Control Act, Article 1 of the Illegal Check Control Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 67No1140 delivered on May 17, 1968, Busan District Court Decision 67No10 delivered on May 17, 1968

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the chief prosecutor of the Busan District Prosecutor's Office are examined.

The Illegal Check Control Act was enacted for the purpose of guaranteeing the safety of the national economy and the function of the check, which is a securities, by punishing the issuance of illegal checks as specified in Article 1. Article 4 of the same Act provides that the person who makes a false declaration in financial institutions for the purpose of evading the payment of the amount of the check or the disposition of suspension of transaction in order to guarantee the function of the check. According to the judgment of the court of first instance maintained the original judgment, the court below, on the records, knew that the defendant was in office as the representative director of the same-sex Free Trade Association in the court of first instance, was the Bank of Korea for the commercial purposes of the company's non-indicted 1 and issued five copies of the check to the effect that it was 128,622 won in total on the date of the above issuance of the check to the effect that it did not reach the above 4th anniversary of the date of the issuance of the check to the effect that the defendant's previous payment of the check was not made for the purpose of the sale of the check.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the arguments that discussed the purport of the above judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)