logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2013.10.25 2013고정909
부정수표단속법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

Where a defendant fails to pay a fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 29, 1995, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Daegu Bank unification route branch in the Daegu Northerndong-gu, Daegu, and has traded household checks.

On December 2, 2012, the Defendant issued four copies of the household check of KRW 20 million in total face value over four occasions, including the issuance of one copy of the bank bank check in the name of the Defendant, which is named as “D” or “five million won at face value”, in Daegu North-gu, Daegu, North-gu, 2012, as described in paragraphs 1 through 4 of the attached list of crimes.

The holders of each check presented the check to the above bank within the period of each presentation for payment, but the defendant did not receive the deposit shortage or the suspension of transaction.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each statute on a written accusation;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act (Selection of Fines) concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 2 (2) and (1) of the same Act;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The summary of the charge of dismissing the prosecution under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant issued the provisional coefficient list stated in the attached Table No. 5 of the crime committed in the judgment of the court, at the time and place, and the holder of the check presented the check to the bank within the period of presentment for payment, but the defendant did not receive the payment of the shortage of deposit or the suspension of transaction.

According to Article 2 (4) of the Illegal Check Control Act, even if the person who issued or prepared the check collects the check or fails to collect it, the check cannot be prosecuted against the explicit intent of the holder of the check.

According to the defendant's presentation of the check at court, the defendant recovered the check No. 5 of the annexed crime sight table.

Therefore, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow