The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On July 19, 2002, the Defendant entered into a check contract with a branch of the National Bank’s wall and traded checks.

On September 2004, the Defendant issued a check number “D”, par value “120,000,000 won”, and issued a copy of the check number per bank under the name of the Defendant with a blank of date of issuance, and presented a payment proposal by filling the issue date on May 23, 201, which is within the period of presentment for payment, to “ May 23, 201,” but did not pay for the shortage of deposits.

In addition, from around that time to September 2007, the Defendant issued more than three occasions a total of 520,000,000 won per share in attached Table 3, as shown in the list of crimes, and the Defendant offered payment within the period for presentation of payment, but the Defendant did not pay each due to the shortage of deposit.

2. The prosecutor institutes a public prosecution that the facts charged charged fall under Article 2(2) of the Illegal Check Control Act. According to the above provision, when a person who issues or prepares a check fails to pay it on the presented date due to shortage of deposit, suspension of transaction, or cancellation or termination of check contract after issuing a check, it shall be deemed as falling under the issuance of an illegal check.

Therefore, the illegal checks stipulated in the above section must be presented within the time limit for presentment of payment under the Check Act, and it is essential to indicate the issue date in order to determine whether the time limit for presentment is complied with.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Do340 Decided May 10, 1983). However, evidence submitted by a prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that a person with legitimate authority entered the date of issuance of each of the instant checks on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, and Supreme Court Decision 90Meu28023 Decided December 21, 1990 alleged by a prosecutor is different from the instant case, and there is no evidence to deem that “the date of issuance is 0.05.23” on the left side of each of the instant check units as the date of issuance.

In the end, this is eventually.