The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel and their defense counsel asserted that there was no intention in violation of the Illegal Check Control Act in the trial before remanding, and that the extinctive prescription of the right to supplement blank was completed. However, in the trial after remand, the contents of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles were modified as follows.

1) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the premise that the check of this case constitutes a simple documentary evidence that does not have the nature of the circulation securities, but has erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the premise of the nature of the circulation securities. 2) Even if the check of this case is recognized as a circulation securities on the check of this case by mistake, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the whole amount of the deposited check in blank, even though there was no sufficient proof on the amount of

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant entered into a check contract with the Jeonbuk Bank on September 2, 2003 under the name of the Defendant and traded the check number per unit.

On July 21, 2006, the Defendant issued one copy of the check number “F”, face value, and one copy of the number of shares per bank under the name of the Defendant, the blanker-gu Office of Geumcheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in order to secure the Defendant’s liability for reimbursement for the guarantee construction of the E- Complex reconstruction apartment executed by the Defendant.

On December 11, 2009, the Defendant: (a) exercised the right to supplement the blank on March 30, 2010; (b) filled up “12,585,000,000 won”; and (c) on April 2, 2010, the Defendant offered the payment proposal to the said bank; (d) on March 30, 201, the Defendant did not receive the disposition of suspension of transaction.

(b) Determination 1.