Whether an act of arbitrarily changing the payment date after collection of promissory notes by the issuer constitutes alteration of securities under Article 214(2) of the Criminal Act

[1] Article 214 (2) of the Criminal Code

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 2001No7642 Delivered on November 21, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 214(2) of the Criminal Code provides that "an alteration is made to the description of rights and obligations of securities" refers to an alteration made by a person who is not authorized to make the entries of securities with respect to the incidental securities act under another person's name (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do753, Dec. 8, 1989). If, even if a bill is issued, there is a person who has rights and obligations on a bill, if there is a person who has rights and obligations on a bill, it constitutes an alteration to the description of the rights and obligations of securities without such person's consent.

According to the records, the defendant issued eight promissory notes to the non-indicted Non-indicted Non-indicted Non-indicted Co., Ltd. as a collateral for the payment of goods, but recovered the said notes by either paying the price or replacing them with a new bill, and then arbitrarily changed the payment date which remains in the non-indicted Non-indicted Co., Ltd. to use as a collateral for endorsement in the name of the non-indicted Non-indicted Co., Ltd.'s name as a collateral for the payment of goods, and then delivered them to the non-indicted Co., Ltd. to the non-indicted Co., Ltd., the court below's decision that such act constitutes the

The Supreme Court Decision 79Do3034 Decided April 22, 1980 cited by appellant differs from the case, and thus, cannot be invoked in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)