The nature of violation of the Act on the Control of Illegal Check and the Default on Payment of Check(affirmative) due to the tension of a special agreement on the presentment of payment(affirmative)

Although the check of the current unit was issued as a security for the obligation and a special agreement was made between the parties not to make a payment to the payment bank, the fact that the holder was refusing to make payment due to the issuance of the special agreement to the third party, the mere fact that the check was issued as a security for the obligation, cannot be said to be exempted from or intentional.

Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do1661 Delivered on September 22, 1981

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jung-chul

Daegu District Court Decision 81No23 delivered on March 5, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

However, according to the evidence cited by the court below, the defendant could not receive the check of this case as the date of presentation when issuing the check of this case. Further, the fact that the check of this case was issued as the security of obligation and the holder agreed not to present it to the payment bank as the special agreement was delivered to a third party and the payment was refused due to the fact that the check of this case was delivered as the security of obligation and the special agreement was delivered to the payment bank, it cannot be said that there was no intention or intention to do so. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the intention to issue the illegal check of this case, such as the theory of lawsuit, nor by failing to exhaust all deliberation. In addition, with respect to the judgment of the court below which sentenced the suspension of execution for the last eight years as of this case, it cannot be viewed as the grounds for appeal on the grounds that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Justice)