From an interpretative perspective, the “use” in the crime of bill fraud not only includes direct exchange for consideration for bills, but also should cover indirect use of bills as collateral. Using bad checks as a guarantee to defraud property may constitute the crime of bill fraud. However, due to the existence of Article 224(2) of the Criminal Law, when such conduct occurs during contract formation or performance, it should be classified as contract fraud. For bill fraud, there should be a direct causal relationship between the issuance of a bad check and the defraud of property. Therefore, the issuance of bad checks can only be used as a means of fraud and cannot be used to delay payment or cover up the facts after fraud. In the latter scenario, if contract performance remains onging, the act should be be singularly convicted as contract fraud. Based on a broad interpretation of the “use” of bill fraud, an intersecting relationship emerges between bill fraud and contract fraud in statutory provisions. According to traditional theory, such intersecting relationships constitute statutory concurrence. However, the distinction between statutory concurrence and imaginative concurrence lies not merely in logic and fact, but in different concrete logical relationship. Classifying intersecting relationship as statutory concurrence proves inadequate as it fails to fully evaluate the illegality and culpability of the conduct. In contrast, the theory of imaginary concurrence, with its ostensive function and blockade of misdemeanor, provides superior analytical framework. Therefore, when bad checks are issued for contract payment during performance, applying imaginative concurrence and imposing punishment based on the more offense represents the more appropriate legal approach.