Can bitcoin be the 'property benefit' that fraud targets? Decision 2021Do9855 on bitcoin as a virtual asset

Question

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act punishes a person who, by deceiving another, obtains delivery of property or acquires a 'property benefit', and Article 347(2) imposes the same punishment where a person, by the same means, causes a third party to do so. Where the thing obtained by deception is bitcoin, the question is whether bitcoin is an object covered by the Article at all and, if so, under which of its two branches it falls.

Decision 2021Do9855 raises that question on appeals brought by Defendant 1 and one other defendant, and by the prosecutor. Defendant 1 had been convicted of fraud in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and the charge of extortion under the same Act against him had been found unproven, as had the charge against Defendant 2. The Supreme Court ruled expressly on whether bitcoin can be the object of the offence of fraud.

Material to check

The statute is Article 347 of the Criminal Act. In the current text read for this brief, paragraph 1 provides that a person who, by deceiving a person, obtains delivery of property or acquires a property benefit is punished by imprisonment for up to 20 years or a fine, and paragraph 2 provides that the same punishment applies where, by the same means, a third party is caused to obtain delivery of property or to acquire a property benefit. Paragraph 1 was amended, and the title of the Article revised, on 23 December 2025. The decision also refers to Article 383(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which it abbreviates as the Specific Economic Crimes Act.

The decision is Decision 2021Do9855 (11 November 2021), rendered by Justices Roh Jeong-hee (presiding), Kim Jae-hyung (reporting), Ahn Cheol-sang and Lee Heung-gu on appeal from the judgment of the Seoul High Court of 9 July 2021 (2020No357). As the decision records, the first-instance court convicted Defendant 1 of fraud in violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act and acquitted him of extortion under the same Act and Defendant 2 of the charge against him, finding those charges unproven. The court below upheld that first-instance judgment, and both the defendants and the prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court.

Possible readings

On the reading stated in the decision, bitcoin is 'a kind of virtual asset that represents economic value digitally so that it can be transferred, stored and traded electronically', and on that account it is a property benefit forming the object of the offence of fraud. The reasoning is definitional: because the value is represented digitally and the asset is transferred and held electronically, it has economic value within the meaning of the statutory phrase.

The words of Article 347(1) are disjunctive: the object of the offence is either delivery of property or acquisition of a property benefit. The decision places bitcoin in the second branch and holds that it is covered as a property benefit; it does not state whether bitcoin is also 'property' in the sense of the first branch, and nothing in the texts read for this brief turns on that distinction. Because the object is covered, a deception by which bitcoin is obtained falls within the Article, and the decision upheld Defendant 1's fraud conviction after finding no error of law as to the deception, the disposition, causation, the intent or the intent to acquire wrongfully.

A further reading follows from what the decision says about sentencing. It treats the argument that the sentencing judgment violated the principle of culpability as an argument that the sentence is unjust, and states that Article 383(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act allows an appeal on that ground only in a case in which the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or detention of 10 years or more has been imposed. A sentence lighter than that cannot support such a ground of appeal.

What the decisions held

Decision 2021Do9855 dismissed all the appeals, holding that the appeals of the defendants and of the prosecutor were without merit. On the prosecutor's grounds of appeal, it held that, reviewed in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the judgment below contained no error of law concerning the establishment of the offence of extortion in violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act, and it left undisturbed the first-instance acquittals of Defendant 1 on that charge and of Defendant 2.

On the appeal of Defendant 1, the decision stated the holding on bitcoin in a single sentence: bitcoin is a kind of virtual asset representing economic value digitally so that it can be transferred, stored and traded electronically, and it is a property benefit forming the object of the offence of fraud. It then held that, reviewed in light of the relevant legal principles and the lawfully admitted evidence, the judgment below, which upheld the first-instance conviction for fraud under the Specific Economic Crimes Act, did not fail to conduct the necessary examination, did not exceed the limits of the free evaluation of evidence contrary to the rules of logic and experience, did not misapprehend the law on the deception, the disposition, causation, the intent or the intent to acquire wrongfully, and did not fail to state reasons or omit a judgment.

The decision disposed of two further points without reaching their merits. It held that the argument that the sentencing judgment breached the principle of culpability is an argument that the sentence is unjust, which is available as a ground of appeal only where the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or detention of 10 years or more has been imposed, and that the lighter sentence imposed on Defendant 1 did not qualify. It also held that Defendant 2 had not filed a notice of appeal, and that, even if the statement of grounds of appeal that his counsel filed in the Supreme Court on 24 August 2021, after the appeal period had expired, were treated as a notice of appeal, the appeal would have been filed after the right of appeal had lapsed and was therefore improper.

Points left open

The decision gives the description of bitcoin in one sentence and lists no further criteria. It does not decide whether bitcoin, besides being a property benefit, is also 'property' under the first branch of Article 347(1), or whether other virtual assets, digital records or electronic value fall within the same phrase; the holding is stated only for bitcoin as a virtual asset that represents economic value digitally and can be transferred, stored and traded electronically.

The decision also leaves undecided what the court below said on the elements of extortion under the Specific Economic Crimes Act. It held only that there was no error of law concerning the establishment of that offence and did not set out the elements it applied. Likewise, the argument that the sentencing judgment breached the principle of culpability was held inadmissible as a ground of appeal and was not decided on its merits.

When to reconsider

We will revisit this brief if Article 347 of the Criminal Act is amended so that its objects or penalties change, if a later Supreme Court decision rules on whether bitcoin or another virtual asset is 'property' as distinct from a property benefit, or if a later decision sets criteria for determining which digital values fall within Article 347.

Statutes referred to

• 형법 제347조

Decisions referred to

• 대법원 2021. 11. 11. 선고 2021도9855 판결 · Decision ledger

Verification status

The texts read for this brief are the decision's published points at issue, summary of holding and full text, and the current text of Article 347 of the Criminal Act, all read at the National Law Information Center on 24 October 2026. The decision cites Article 347 without marking a former version, and the text read for this brief is the version in force from 2 October 2026.