Unit for calculating the amount of gain from fraud under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, number of offenses per victim, finding of habitual offending without amendment of the indictment, and application of the exemption for relatives

Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check

7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16

A different family of AI (GPT-6 Astra) conducted an independent reading of the original text without seeing the first reading, and on comparison, 7 of the 8 axes matched, while the readings diverged on the 8th axis (Open question and revisit condition).

Raw 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 below (Seoul High Court, 88No3001) found that the defendant, an employee engaged in machine-operation work in the ordinary deposit section of a bank, individually deceived 18 victims and thereby obtained money by fraud, and, on the premise that one offense of fraud was established with respect to each victim, calculated the amount of gain on a per-victim basis and applied subparagraph 3 of Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes where the amount was not less than 100 million won but less than 1 billion won, and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act where it was less than 100 million won. In addition, without amendment of the indictment, the court below applied the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes on the basis of simple fraud, and dismissed the prosecution under Article 327, subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in respect of the portion concerning victims in a kinship relationship who had withdrawn their complaints before the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court.

Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court clarified the legal principle that the amount of gain is calculated on the basis of a simple single offense or a single comprehensive offense and that fraud against multiple victims constitutes several independent offenses per victim, the legal principle that an offender may not be punished for habitual fraud without amendment of the indictment, and the legal principle that the exemption for relatives applies even to an offense of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and, finding all of the court below's determinations to be proper, dismissed the final appeal.

Distinguishing conditions

• Where the victim is the same person and, with a single unitary intent and by the same method over a certain period, property is obtained by fraud, thereby constituting a single comprehensive offense
• Where the prosecution charged habitual fraud from the outset or amended the indictment to charge habitual fraud
• Where there is no kinship relationship as prescribed in Article 328 of the Criminal Act between the defendant and the victim, or where the complaint was withdrawn after the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court

Record verification notes

Before asserting that the amount of gain is calculated on a per-victim basis, it needs to be checked whether the harm to multiple victims is in substance attributable to a single holder of the legal interest or arose simultaneously from a single act of deception, and when asserting the exemption for relatives, the timing of the withdrawal of the complaint and the scope of kinship must first be verified.

From the official text

Points at issue

가. 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 소정의 이득액의 의미 나. 단일한 범의로 동일한 범행방법에 의하여 수인의 피해자에 대한 사기죄를 저지른 경우의 죄수 다. 단순사기의 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 위반으로 기소된 것은 공소장변경없이 상습사기의 같은 특별법위반으로 처벌할 수 있는지 여부(소극) 라. 같은법 제3조 제1항에 의한 가중처벌시 친족상도례의 적용 여부(적극)

Summary of the holding

가. 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항에서 말하는 이득액은 단순일죄의 이득액이나 혹은 포괄일죄가 성립되는 경우의 이득액의 합산액을 의미하고 경합범으로 처벌될 수죄에 있어서 그 이득액을 합한 금액을 말한다고 볼 수는 없다. 나. 단일한 범의의 발동에 의하여 상대방을 기망하고 그 결과 착오에 빠져 있는 동일인으로부터 어떤 기간동안 동일한 방법에 의하여 금원을 편취한 경우에는 이를 포괄적으로 관찰하여 일죄로 처단하는 것이 상당하나, 수인의 피해자에 대하여 각별로 기망행위를 하여 각각 재물을 편취한 경우에는 비록 범의가 단일하고 범행방법이 동일하더라도 각피해자의 피해법익은 독립한 것이므로 이를 포괄일죄로 파악할 수는 없고 피해자별로 독립한 수개의 사기죄가 성립된다. 다. 검사가 단순사기의 공소사실에 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 제2호, 형법 제347조 제1항을 적용하여 기소한 경우에는 비록 상습성이 인정된다고 하더라도 공소장의 변경이 없는 한 법원이 상습사기의 같은 특별법위반으로 인정하여 처벌할 수는 없다. 라. 형법상 사기죄의 성질은 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항에 의해 가중처벌되는 경우에도 그대로 유지되고, 특별법인 위 법률에 친족상도례에 관한 형법 제354조, 제328조의 적용을 배제한다는 명시적인 규정이 없으므로 형법 제354조는 같은 특별법 제3조 제1항 위반죄에도 그대로 적용된다.

Order

상고를 기각한다.

Provisions referred to

가. 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반 제3조 제1항 나. 형법 제37조 다. 형사소송법 제298조 라. 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반 제3조 제1항, 형법 제328조, 제354조