Requirements for establishing a crime of violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Do1207 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992Ha, 3039) Supreme Court Decision 97Do249 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1518) Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2190 Delivered on September 5, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2150)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney White-Ba

Daegu District Court Decision 2006No2799 Decided December 29, 2006

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant and public defender

A. On the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

After recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the employment evidence, the court below found the defendant guilty of preparing three copies of the sales tax invoice and the defendant who delivered the above facts, although there was no fact that he actually supplied goods or services. In light of the records, the court below's selection of evidence, fact-finding and decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or lack of reasoning due to insufficient deliberation as argued in the

B. As to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act

The crime of violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established when an issuer issues a check, predicting the occurrence that the check will not be paid on the date for presentation due to the shortage of deposit, etc., and the occurrence of the occurrence is established at the time of issuance of the check, even if the predictability is not affected, and there is no special agreement or the circumstance where the check was issued or the check was not issued, etc., which makes it difficult to exempt the issuer from the criminal liability for the crime of issuance of the illegal check solely on the ground that there is an internal reason. However, if the issuer believed that the check would not be presented due to the occurrence of the occurrence of the result or special circumstances, and that it is justified to believe that the check is not presented on the date for presentation (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1207 delivered on September 22, 192, etc.).

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and found the defendant guilty of the crime of violation of Article 2 (2) of the above Illegal Check Control Act on the ground that the defendant believed that the above check will not be presented, or that there is no justifiable reason to believe that there was a lack of deposit, etc. when issuing the check of this case (number Ma 10155380, par value 400,000,000). In light of the records, the court below's selection of evidence, fact-finding and determination are justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts due to insufficient deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the liability for the crime of the issuance of illegal check, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

C. As to the alteration of securities and the exercise of securities altered, and the fraud against Nonindicted 1 of the victim

After recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its employment evidence, the court below found the defendant guilty of both the facts constituting the alteration of the securities of this case and the alteration of the securities of this case and the crime of fraud against the victim non-indicted 1 through such alteration. In light of the records, the court below's selection of evidence, fact-finding and decision of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, mistake of

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Of the facts charged in this case, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted Nonindicted 2 on the charge of forging securities and the use of forged securities and the use of forged securities, on the ground that it is difficult to believe it in its reasoning and there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, and therefore, the facts constituting the crime of forging securities and the use of forged securities, which are the main premise for the fraud against Nonindicted 3. However, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant knew of the fact that Nonindicted 4 Co. 3, who is the name of the issuance of the securities, was the date of the payment, or predicted even if not, there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant was either delivered the said securities to Nonindicted 3, and delivered the said securities to Nonindicted 3 and received the money. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts, etc. as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendant and the Prosecutor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)