Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
The applicable statutory provision for habitual fraud committed both before and after the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes took effect, and the scope of application of Article 4(1) of the Addenda to the Criminal Act
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, July 22, 1986, 86Do1012 (en banc judgment)
Case name: 상습사기,특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반,유가증권위조
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a person commits habitual fraud both before and after the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes took effect, and the value obtained after the Act took effect exceeds the lower limit under Article 3(1)3 of that Act, under which statutory provision must that person be punished?
Holding
Article 4(1) of the Addenda to the Criminal Act is a transitional provision between the former and the new Criminal Act, and therefore cannot be applied or applied by analogy in relation to other Acts. The Supreme Court held that, where the value obtained after the enforcement of the Act satisfies the constituent elements, the remaining acts must be dealt with comprehensively as the offense of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which carries the heavier statutory penalty.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
상습으로 사기의 범죄행위를 되풀이 한 경우에 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률시행 이후의 범행으로 인하여 취득한 재물의 가액이 위 법률 제3조 제1항 제3호의 구성요건을 충족하는 때는 그중 법정형이 중한 위 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률위반의 죄에 나머지 행위를 포괄시켜 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률위반의 죄로 처단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a person repeatedly commits the criminal act of fraud out of habit, and the value of the property obtained through offenses committed after the enforcement of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes satisfies the constituent elements of Article 3, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the Act, the remainder of the acts shall be subsumed into the offense of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which carries the heavier statutory penalty among them, and shall be adjudicated as the offense of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
법률시행 이후의 범행으로 인하여 취득한 재물의 가액이 위 법률 제3조 제1항 제3호의 구성요건을 충족하는 때는
Unofficial English translation
if the value of the property obtained through offenses committed after the enforcement of the Act satisfies the constituent elements of Article 3, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the Act,
Factors
- 구형법과의 관계에서 그 적용범위를 규정한 경과법으로서
- 형법 제8조에서 규정하는 총칙규정이 아닐 뿐 아니라
- 행위종료시의 법률의 적용을 배제한 점에서 타당한 것이 아니므로
- 그중 법정형이 중한 위 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률위반의 죄에 나머지 행위를 포괄시켜
Unofficial English translation
• as a transitional law that provides for its scope of application in relation to the former Criminal Act,
• not only is it not a general provision prescribed in Article 8 of the Criminal Act, but
• it is not proper in that it excludes the application of the law at the time of the completion of the act, and therefore
• the remainder of the acts shall be subsumed into the offense of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which carries the heavier statutory penalty among them, and
Relation to precedent
Changes earlier decisions Read from the decision
다른 법과의 관계에서는 위 부칙을 적용 내지 유추적용할 것이 아니다
Unofficial English translation
the foregoing supplementary provision shall not be applied or applied mutatis mutandis in relation to other laws
Decisions referred to
대법원 1970.8.31 선고 70도1393 판결, 1986.7.22 선고 86도968 판결(동지)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Under which statutory provision must the offense be dealt with where the value obtained after the enforcement of the Act alone falls short of the lower limit under Article 3(1)3 of the same Act, and the lower limit is exceeded only when the values obtained before and after the enforcement are combined?
This reading will be re-examined if the en banc precedent on the value brackets under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the transitional provisions of the Addenda to the Criminal Act, or the time-of-act rule for single comprehensive offenses (one crime covering repeated acts) changes.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another AI model (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on the sixth axis (Relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “Changes earlier decisions” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The text presents the conflict of legal interpretation between the majority and minority opinions but does not explicitly state a change of prior precedents; the primary reading reads this as Changes earlier decisions, while the independent reading may be regarded as leaving the relation to precedent undetermined.
다른 법과의 관계에서는 위 부칙을 적용 내지 유추적용할 것이 아니다Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court of first instance treated the act set forth in I of the holding as a whole as falling under Article 3(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, but took only the portion after the enforcement of the Act as the basis for the amount of loss. The court below held that, in light of the purport of Article 4(1) of the Addenda to the Criminal Act, this offense, which straddled January 1, 1984, when the Act came into force, must be dealt with under the law preceding the enactment of the Act even though the aggregate amount defrauded after the enforcement exceeded the lower limit, and, after reversing that part of the first-instance judgment other than the order of restitution, applied Articles 351 and 347(1) of the Criminal Act comprehensively.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that Article 4(1) of the Addenda to the Criminal Act is a transitional provision between the former and the new Criminal Act and not a general provision of Article 8 of the Criminal Act, and therefore does not apply in relation to other Acts. It reversed and remanded, stating that the court below had misunderstood the scope of application of Article 4 of the Addenda to the Criminal Act and erred in the application of the law, and it discarded the earlier precedents that were inconsistent with this position. One Justice filed a dissenting opinion, viewing the Addenda as a general or supplementary provision and taking the position that the offense must be dealt with under the law in force before the enforcement.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases that fall within the very transitional relationship originally governed by Article 4(1) of the Addenda to the Criminal Act, such as where the offense straddles the enforcement of the former and the new Criminal Act itself
- Cases where the value obtained after the enforcement of the Act alone does not satisfy the constituent elements of Article 3(1)3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes
- Cases where the acts committed before and after the enforcement are not evaluated as a single comprehensive offense (one crime covering repeated acts) arising from the manifestation of habituality, but constitute separate offenses
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one checks whether the amount defrauded after the enforcement of the Act alone exceeds the lower limit of the aggravated punishment bracket, whether the acts before and after the enforcement are bound together as a single comprehensive offense (one crime covering repeated acts) grounded in habituality, and how the reasoning of the dissenting opinion, based on the principle of applying the law in force at the time of the act and the prohibition of retroactive punishment, was treated in later precedents.
From the official text
Points at issue
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률 시행전후에 걸쳐 상습사기 범행을 한 자가 위 법시행 이후 취득한 가액이 동법 제3조 제1항 제3호 소정의 하단을 초과하는 경우의 적용법조
Unofficial English translation
The statutory provision applicable where a person who committed habitual fraud spanning the periods before and after the enforcement of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes obtains, by offenses committed after the enforcement of the Act, a value exceeding the lower limit prescribed in Article 3, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the Act
Summary of the holding
(다수의견) 형법 부칙 제4조 제1항은 “1개의 죄가 본법시행 전후에 걸쳐서 행하여진 때에는 본법 시행전에 범한 것으로 간주한다”고 규정하고 있으나 위 부칙은 형법시행에 즈음하여 구형법과의 관계에서 그 적용범위를 규정한 경과법으로서 형법 제8조에서 규정하는 총칙규정이 아닐 뿐 아니라 범죄의 성립과 처벌은 행위시의 법률에 의한다고 규정한 형법 제1조 제1항의 해석으로서도 행위종료시의 법률의 적용을 배제한 점에서 타당한 것이 아니므로 신·구형법과의 관계가 아닌 다른 법과의 관계에서는 위 부칙을 적용 내지 유추적용할 것이 아니다. 따라서 상습으로 사기의 범죄행위를 되풀이 한 경우에 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률시행 이후의 범행으로 인하여 취득한 재물의 가액이 위 법률 제3조 제1항 제3호의 구성요건을 충족하는 때는 그중 법정형이 중한 위 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률위반의 죄에 나머지 행위를 포괄시켜 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률위반의 죄로 처단하여야 한다. (소수의견) 형법 부칙 제4조 제1항은 범죄의 실행행위가 신·구 양법에 걸쳐서 행하여진 범죄의 행위시를 정한 것으로 형법의 적용범위, 범죄와 형벌등에 관한 것이어서 비록 그것이 부칙에 규정되어 있다고 하여 형법만의 경과규정에 불과한 것이 아니라 형법총칙규정 내지는 그 보완규정이라고 풀이할 것이어서 이는 형법과 다른 법률과의 사이 또는 다른 법률의 개정과정에서 그 양법에 걸쳐서 행하여진 범죄에 대하여 그 행위시를 정함에 있어 다같이 적용되는 조문이다. 따라서 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률시행 전후에 상습으로 사기범행을 행한 경우 위 법 시행이후에 취득한 재물의 가액이 위 법률 제3조 제1항 제3호 소정의 하한을 넘고 있더라도 위 법률시행전의 법률에 따라 처단하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제3호, 형법부칙 제4조 제1항
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger