logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.04.25 2013고단2626
부정수표단속법위반등
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

An application filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From November 3, 1990, Defendant A entered into a check contract with the Gwangju Bank Forest Branch and Defendant A and entered into a check contract from November 3, 1990.

Defendant

A around November 15, 2012, A issued a copy of the check number H, check amount of KRW 3 million, and the date of issuance on January 15, 2013 in Gda located in the Dong-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, a copy of the bank bank check in the name of the defendant as of January 15, 2013.

On January 16, 2013, the holder of the check presented the check payment to the bank on January 16, 2013.

However, Defendant A, as stated in the attached Table 1 from October 12, 2012 to December 29, 2012, did not receive the above check as a disposition of suspension of transaction, issued a provisional coefficient check in the sum of face value of 68 million won, and did not pay it on the grounds of suspension of transaction, shortage of deposits, and free transaction, etc. as shown in the attached Table 1.

From October 12, 2012, the Defendants conspiredd with the victim Jin-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju, with the victim Jin-gu, that “A will pay the victim the household check of KRW 3 million issued by A and the household coefficient of KRW 5 million at the main date of the payment. A will not give money to A’s shares. If the settlement date is the date, I will sell shares.”

However, at the time of fact, Defendant B was unable to engage in normal financial transactions because he was unable to repay approximately KRW 34 million of credit, and Defendant A was in a situation where approximately KRW 1 million was incurred each month at the parking lot operated by Defendant A, and there was no particular revenue, and thus, Defendant B was issued a check to other persons in order to prevent them from returning the check and maintained their livelihood in the form of return of credit card services. Therefore, Defendant B did not have any intention or ability to pay the check to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendants deceiving the victim as above and only three million won.

arrow