LegalPost

Guide to Offenses Under the Improper Check Control Act (부정수표단속법 위반죄)

Based on 31 consultation cases · Updated · Translated from the Korean original.

The fact that a check was dishonored does not by itself give rise to criminal liability. It is necessary to consider whether the issuer foresaw nonpayment when issuing the check, whether the reason for nonpayment is one specified by law, and whether the check was recovered.

At a glance

People involved → Check issuer → Check holder → Person completing a blank check → A check is dishonored when presented for payment → Did the issuer foresee nonpayment when issuing the check? → No → Yes → Was the dishonor for a reason specified by law? → Yes, Article 2(2) → Was the check recovered, or does the holder explicitly oppose punishment? → Yes, Article 2(4) → Potential criminal liability Dishonor alone is not enough → The offense may not be established or prosecution may be barred → Confirm who issued the check → Verify the precise dishonor reason → A repayment deposit alone may not count as recovery → Completing a blank check alone does not make someone its issuer → Listed reasons are insufficient funds, suspended transactions, or ended check agreement → Check whether the check itself was recovered

Key points

  • A person may be punished for issuing a check that is improper under the law, such as issuing it without a check agreement or after an order suspending transactions has been issued. A person may also be punished for causing a check not to be paid on the date of presentment because of insufficient funds or a similar reason (Improper Check Control Act, Articles 2(1) and 2(2) (부정수표단속법 제2조 제1항·제2항)).
  • If the issuer foresaw at the time of issuance that the check would go unpaid because of insufficient funds or a similar reason, even conditional foresight may establish liability. However, liability may not arise in exceptional circumstances where the issuer did not foresee that result or had a justifiable reason to believe that the check would not be presented for payment (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6490, September 30, 2010).
  • The reasons for dishonor are limited to insufficient funds, an order suspending transactions, or the rescission or termination of the check agreement. If payment was refused for another reason, an offense under Article 2(2) may not be established (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5147, October 26, 2006).
  • Prosecution for offenses under Article 2(2) and (3) may not be instituted if the issuer recovers the check or, even if the check is not recovered, if prosecution would be contrary to the check holder’s explicit wish that the issuer not be punished. If an accomplice recovers the check, the effect may also extend to the other accomplices (Improper Check Control Act, Article 2(4) (부정수표단속법 제2조 제4항)).
  • A deposit for repayment of an amount equal to the check amount, and the holder’s receipt of that amount, may not constitute recovery of the check or an expression of the holder’s wish that the issuer not be punished (Supreme Court Decision 94Do789, October 21, 1994).
  • A blank check may, in principle, also be subject to the Act. However, an exception may apply in a special case where, in light of the purpose of issuance and the terms of the agreement, the check could not circulate and it was clearly foreseeable at the time of issuance that transactions would be suspended when the check was later presented for payment (Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7185, December 26, 2013).
  • A person who completes a blank check does not become its issuer or maker merely by completing it. The issuer is not liable for an amount exceeding the scope of the authority to complete the check, and completion after the limitation period for that authority has expired may not be treated as lawful completion (Supreme Court Decision 81Do1495, September 8, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3184, November 27, 2001).

Frequently asked questions

Q. Is the issuer automatically punished if a check is dishonored?

No. A violation of Article 2(2) requires that the check went unpaid for a reason specified by law, and it must also be considered whether the issuer foresaw, when issuing it, that it would go unpaid. The fact that a check was dishonored does not by itself establish liability.

Case 2, Case 4, Case 20, Case 23

Q. If I lent a check to someone else and it is dishonored, who is responsible?

The cases explain that the person who issued or made out the check is the one responsible, and that a person who borrowed the check and made a promise does not assume criminal liability in the issuer’s place. However, the specific requirements for the issuer’s liability, such as intent or negligence, must be considered separately.

Case 5

Q. Can I be punished if the holder promised not to present the check but it is nevertheless dishonored?

As a rule, that promise or the circumstances surrounding issuance will not be enough to avoid liability. The outcome may differ in exceptional circumstances, such as where the issuer did not foresee when issuing the check that it would go unpaid, or had a justifiable reason to believe it would not be presented for payment.

Case 2, Case 20

Q. Can I avoid criminal liability by depositing the amount of a dishonored check for repayment?

According to the cases, even if the issuer deposits an amount equal to the face value of the check for repayment and the holder receives it, this may not constitute either recovery of the check or the holder’s explicit wish that the issuer not be punished. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that a deposit alone prevents prosecution.

Case 1

Q. If an accomplice recovers the check, can the other accomplices also no longer be prosecuted?

According to the cases, if an accomplice recovers the dishonored check, the effect also extends to the other accomplices. The cases explain that the result is the same even if the accomplice who recovered the check wants the other accomplices to be punished.

Case 8, Case 16

Q. If a blank check is completed for more than the agreed amount and is dishonored, is the issuer liable for the full amount?

According to the cases, the issuer may be liable within the scope of the authority to complete a blank check, but is not liable for a violation of the Improper Check Control Act for an amount completed beyond that authority. The cases alone do not establish what separate legal liability may arise from the conduct of the person who completed it.

Case 6, Case 14

Q. Can I be punished if a check is dishonored when its date of issue was blank or was later corrected?

There are cases holding that if a check is presented without its date of issue having been completed, the presentation cannot be treated as a lawful presentation for payment, making it difficult to establish an offense under Article 2(2). By contrast, the issuer may be liable if, with the holder’s consent, the issuer lawfully corrects the date of issue and the check is presented within the presentation period calculated from the corrected date. A correction made by another person without the issuer’s consent or authorization may be assessed differently.

Case 12, Case 17, Case 19

Q. Does making a false report about a lost check or similar matter violate the Improper Check Control Act?

Making a false report to a financial institution to avoid payment of a check or an order suspending transactions may violate Article 4. It must be affirmatively proved that the report was contrary to objective fact. The cases explain that a person who is not the named issuer, such as a person who borrowed another’s name, cannot be the offender for a violation of Article 4.

Case 10, Case 18, Case 25

Relevant laws

  • Improper Check Control Act, Article 2(1), (2), (3), and (4) (부정수표단속법 제2조 제1항·제2항·제3항·제4항)
  • Improper Check Control Act, Article 3 (부정수표단속법 제3조)
  • Improper Check Control Act, Article 4 (부정수표단속법 제4조)
  • Improper Check Control Act, Article 5 (부정수표단속법 제5조)
  • Check Act, Article 3 (수표법 제3조)
  • Check Act, Article 51 (수표법 제51조)
  • Banking Act, Article 1 (은행법 제1조)
  • Enforcement Decree of the Improper Check Control Act, Article 2(1) (부정수표단속법 시행령 제2조 제1항)
  • Criminal Procedure Act, Article 310-2 (형사소송법 제310조의2)

Watch out for

  • The cases explain that, where a check is recovered or the holder expresses a wish that the issuer not be punished, this must occur before the first-instance judgment is pronounced for the restriction on prosecution to apply.
  • A deposit for repayment or payment of the check amount alone does not constitute recovery of the check or the holder’s explicit wish that the issuer not be punished.
  • The outcome for a blank check may vary depending on the scope of the authority to complete it, the limitation period, the purpose of issuance, and whether it could circulate.
  • The reason the check was refused for payment and the circumstances at the time it was issued must be confirmed; the fact of dishonor alone is not enough to conclude that an offense was committed.

Source cases

This guide was compiled by AI from the following Korea Legal Aid Corporation consultation cases (in Korean).

  1. 수표부도 후 변제공탁 한 경우 부정수표단속법 위반 여부
  2. 수표가 지급거절된 경우에도 처벌되지 않는 경우
  3. 백지수표가 부도가 났더라도 예외적으로 부정수표단속법위반죄가 성립하지 않는 경우
  4. 부도수표를 회수할 경우 형사책임을 면할 수 있는지
  5. 빌려준 당좌수표 부도처리 시 부정수표단속법위반의 책임자
  6. 백지수표가 부도난 경우 부정수표단속법 위반 여부
  7. 백지보충권 소멸시효 완성 후 보충된 수표 부도된 때 처벌 여부
  8. 부정수표가 부정수표가공범에 의하여 회수된 경우, 그 공범이 다른 공범자의 처벌을 원하는 경우에도 공소를 제기할 수 없는지 여부...
  9. 부정수표단속법 2조 1항 2호 소정의 "금융기관"의 범위
  10. 수표발행자가 피사취신고를 한 경우 부정수표단속법 위반 여부
  11. 백지수표를 보충한 자도 부정수표단속법 위반으로 처벌되는지
  12. 백지 보충없이 지급제시가 있을 경우 그 수표의 발행행위가 부정수표단속법 제2조 제2항 위반죄를 구성하는지 여부
  13. 발행한도액 초과한 가계수표가 부도된 경우 형사처벌
  14. 백지보충권의 범위를 넘은 금액에 대해 책임을 지는지 여부
  15. 타인의 기망에 의하여 발행된 수표가 부도된 경우 부정수표단속법 제2조제2항에 해당여부
  16. 공범이 부정수표를 회수한 경우 처벌되는지 여부
  17. 발행일의 정정과 부도수표 여부 (2)
  18. 수표금액의 지급 또는 거래정지처분 면탈 목적의 허위신고의 요건
  19. 발행일의 정정과 부도수표 여부 (1)
  20. 수표부도의 고의
  21. 부도수표 사본의 증거능력
  22. 백지수표의 위조와 벌금액
  23. 수표부도의 사유는 제한적인지
  24. 부정수표단속법위반죄와 무고죄의 죄수관계
  25. 명의차용인도 부정수표 단속법 제4조 위반죄의 주체가 될 수 있는지

This guide is general legal information about Korean law, not legal advice for your situation. For a specific case, consult a lawyer or the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (call 132 in Korea).