The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, together with B, has entered into a check check agreement with the airport Dong branch office of the Industrial Bank of Korea from March 31, 2008, and each of the Dong Dong branch offices of the new bank from March 2, 2012 from March 2, 2012, in collusion with B, with the Bank of Korea (hereinafter “The Bank of Korea”) and entered into a check check agreement with B;

A. On January 1, 2010, in the office of the above Dispute Resolution D Co., Ltd., each of which was issued in the name of the Bank of Korea, “E”, “20,000,000 won” and “F” and “F” and “60,000 won” of the number of shares per bank, each of which was issued in the name of the Bank of Korea, in the name of the Bank of Korea, and each of the holders of the said check, stated the date of issuance on October 10, 2013, and presented a payment proposal for the said check to the branch office of the Bank of Korea at the Industrial Bank of Korea on October 11, 2013, which is within the period of presentment for payment, but is not paid as suspension of transaction;

B. On May 1, 2012, in the office of the above Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., the check number “G”, “20,000,000 won”, and the number of shares per new bank in the name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., which became the date of issuance, issued one copy of the check number per the new bank in the name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and the holder of the check entered the date of issuance on October 10, 2013 according to legitimate authority and issued the check on October 11, 2013, which was within the time limit of the payment proposal, and did not receive as a disposition of transaction suspension.

2. The facts charged of this case are crimes falling under Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Illegal Check Control Act, where a person who has issued or prepared a check pursuant to Article 2 (4) of the Illegal Check Control Act collects the check, and the record reveals that the defendant collected all of the above checks after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, the prosecution of this case against the defendant pursuant to Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.