Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Standards for Calculating the Amount of Gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Determination of the Statute of Limitations in Cases of Obtaining a Share in a Limited Partnership by Fraud
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Feb. 25, 2000, 99Do4305 (judgment)
Case name: 살인미수교사·특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)·폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반·사기·위증·변호사법위반·폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(인정된죄명:공갈)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a share in a limited partnership is obtained by fraud, is the amount of gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes calculated on the basis of the appraised value of the department store real estate held by the company, or the agreed transfer price?
Holding
Since what is acquired by a transfer of a share in a limited partnership is the membership right, the amount of gain is the objective economic value represented by the share right, and, absent special circumstances, the agreed transfer price is the standard. The Supreme Court reversed the guilty findings against Defendant 1 in the judgment of the court below, in which the court below had taken the appraised value of the department store as the amount of gain in deciding the statute of limitations.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
거래약정 당사자 사이에 양도가액이 정해져 있으면 그것이 객관적인 재산적 가치를 평가하였다고 볼 수 없는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 양도가액을 지분권이 갖는 객관적인 재산적 가치로 봄이 상당하므로
Unofficial English translation
Where the transfer price has been agreed upon between the parties to a transaction agreement, unless there are special circumstances under which that transfer price cannot be regarded as having assessed the objective pecuniary value, it is reasonable to regard that transfer price as the objective pecuniary value possessed by the equity interest,
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인 1에 대한 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 그 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded as to the portion finding Defendant 1 guilty, and that portion of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Stated in the decision
그 양도가액을 기준으로 삼아야 한다고 본 사례
Unofficial English translation
a case holding that it must be based on that transfer price
Factors
- 합자회사의 지분의 양도로 인하여 취득하는 것은 지분권, 즉 사원권이므로
- 그 이득액은 지분권이 표창하는 객관적인 재산적 가치라고 보아야 할 것이고
- 그것이 객관적인 재산적 가치를 평가하였다고 볼 수 없는 특별한 사정이 없는 한
- 권리행사를 빙자하여 사회통념상 용인되기 어려운 정도를 넘는 협박을 수단으로
Unofficial English translation
• because what is acquired by the transfer of an equity interest in a limited partnership company is the equity interest, that is, the membership right,
• the amount of gain must be regarded as the objective pecuniary value represented by the equity interest; and
• unless there are special circumstances under which that transfer price cannot be regarded as having assessed the objective pecuniary value,
• using as a means threats exceeding the degree that is difficult to accept as tolerable in light of socially accepted notions, under the pretext of exercising a right,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1990. 10. 16. 선고 90도1815 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 90Do1815 decided October 16, 1990
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1986. 6. 10. 선고 85도119 판결(공1986, 894), 대법원 1991. 1. 29. 선고 90도2153 판결(공1991, 902), 대법원 1996. 2. 23. 선고 95도1642 판결(공1996상, 1172), 대법원 1997. 2. 14. 선고 96도1959 판결(공1997상, 831), 대법원 1998. 3. 10. 선고 98도70 판결(공1998상, 1106) / [2] 대법원 1969. 3. 11. 선고 69도161 판결(집17-1, 형63), 대법원 1999. 1. 26. 선고 98도3732 판결(공1999상, 407) / [3] 대법원 1996. 11. 12. 선고 96도2214 판결(공1996하, 3651), 대법원 1997. 6. 27. 선고 95도1964 판결(공1997하, 2221), 대법원 1998. 10. 13. 선고 97도3337 판결(공1998하, 2720), 대법원 1999. 1. 26. 선고 98도3029 판결(공1999상, 405), 대법원 1999. 2. 23. 선고 98도1869 판결(공1999상, 599) / [4] 대법원 1990. 3. 27. 선고 89도2036 판결(공1990, 1019), 대법원 1991. 11. 26. 선고 91도2344 판결(공1992, 370), 대법원 1996. 3. 22. 선고 95도2801 판결(공1996상, 1459), 대법원 1996. 9. 24. 선고 96도2151 판결(공1996하, 3265) / [5] 대법원 1990. 10. 16. 선고 90도1815 판결(공1990, 2354) / [7] 대법원 1991. 3. 22. 선고 91도235 판결(공1991, 1312), 대법원 1991. 11. 12. 선고 91도1278 판결(공1992, 158), 대법원 1992. 6. 9. 선고 92도737 판결(공1992, 2175), 대법원 1993. 3. 23. 선고 92도3327 판결(공1993상, 1333)
Burden of proof
The prosecution Read from the decision
합리적인 의심을 할 여지가 없을 정도로 공소사실이 진실한 것이라는 확신을 가지게 할 수 있는 증명력을 가진 증거에 의하여야 하고
Unofficial English translation
it must rest on evidence having such probative value as to create a conviction that the charged facts are true beyond reasonable doubt; and
Open question and revisit condition
Even where the agreed transfer price itself was determined under the influence of an act of deception, can that price be regarded as the objective economic value of the share right?
If the standard for calculating the amount of gain under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, or the provisions on the statute of limitations for the offense of fraud, is changed, this reading must be rechecked.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 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, 5 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test), Axis 5 (Factors), and Axis 7 (Burden of proof).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Since the original text contains both a case setting the transfer price of the share as the standard for the amount of gain and the general elements for the establishment of various offenses, the primary reading may focus on the application to the facts, while the independent reading may focus on the statement of requirements.
정당행위를 인정하려면 첫째 그 행위의 동기나 목적의 정당성, 둘째 행위의 수단이나 방법의 상당성, 셋째 보호이익과 침해이익과의 법익균형성, 넷째 긴급성, 다섯째 그 행위 외에 다른 수단이나 방법이 없다는 보충성 등의 요건을 갖추어야 한다.Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “Since what is acquired by a transfer of a share in a limited partnership is the share right, that is, the membership right / the amount of gain must be regarded as the objective economic value represented by the share right, and / unless there are special circumstances preventing it from being regarded as having assessed the objective economic value / by means of threats exceeding a degree that is difficult to tolerate under social norms under the guise of exercising a right” vs Independent “Where several persons, at the same place and on the same occasion, recognize one another's offenses and commit an offense by making use thereof / the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of that act / threats exceeding a degree that is difficult to tolerate under social norms / special circumstances preventing it from being regarded as having assessed the objective economic value / the conviction that the alleged facts are true to a degree leaving no room for reasonable doubt”
The primary reading focuses on the nature and objective value of the membership right, whereas the independent reading is dispersed across joint offense, justifiable act, and the degree of proof, with common factors falling short of half.
거래약정 당사자 사이에 양도가액이 정해져 있으면 그것이 객관적인 재산적 가치를 평가하였다고 볼 수 없는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 양도가액을 지분권이 갖는 객관적인 재산적 가치로 봄이 상당하므로Axis 7 (Burden of proof): Primary “The prosecution” vs Independent “Not addressed”
Since the original text requires proof excluding reasonable doubt without directly specifying who bears the burden of proof, the primary reading may be understood as implying the prosecution's burden of proof, while the independent reading may be understood as finding no express mention.
합리적인 의심을 할 여지가 없을 정도로 공소사실이 진실한 것이라는 확신을 가지게 할 수 있는 증명력을 가진 증거에 의하여야 하고Raw 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 held that although what Defendant 1 obtained by fraud from Victim 3 was in form a share in a limited partnership, in substance it was the obtaining by fraud of rights to the entire department store, borrowing the form of a share transfer; it calculated the amount of gain as 6,644,344,100 won, the appraised value of the department store at the time, reversed the first-instance judgment, which had entered a judgment terminating prosecution on statutory grounds (myeonso) on the ground that the statute of limitations had been completed, and rendered a judgment on the merits. It maintained the guilty findings for joint assault, intimidation, and perjury, and found not guilty the charges of coercion, Defendant 2's fraud, and Defendant 3's violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, while stating that the reasoning of the court below that the amount of gain is unrelated to conditions or burdens was correct, held that, since what is acquired by a transfer of a share is the membership right, whether the statute of limitations had been completed must be decided on the basis of the objective value of the share taking even debts into account and, absent special circumstances, the agreed transfer price of 600 million won. Because this part and the remaining guilty findings against Defendant 1 constituted concurrent offenses, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the entirety of the guilty findings against Defendant 1, and dismissed the final appeals of Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and the prosecution.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the defendant directly obtained the company's own real estate rather than a share
- Where there are special circumstances preventing the agreed transfer price from being regarded as having assessed the objective economic value of the share
- Where no transfer price was set and the value of the share right must be separately determined by appraisal or the like
Record verification notes
Before contesting the amount of gain, it should first be checked whether the object obtained by fraud was the share right or the company's assets, and whether there are special circumstances causing the agreed transfer price to diverge from the share value reflecting the company's debts.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 폭력행위등처벌에관한법률 제2조 제2항 소정의 '2인 이상이 공동하여'의 의미 [2] 상해죄에 있어서 상해의 의미 [3] 형법 제20조 소정의 정당행위의 성립 요건 [4] 피해자에 대하여 금전채권을 갖고 있는 자가 사회통념상 용인되기 어려운 협박 수단을 이용하여 재물의 교부 또는 재산상의 이익을 받은 경우, 공갈죄의 성립 여부(적극) [5] 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 소정의 '이득액'의 의미 [6] 합자회사 지분의 양도시 거래약정 당사자 사이에 양도가액이 정해져 있는 경우, 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 소정의 '이득액'은 그 양도가액을 기준으로 산정하여야 한다고 본 사례 [7] 형사재판에 있어서 유죄의 인정을 위한 증거의 증명력 정도
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of 'committed jointly by two or more persons' as used in Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act [2] Meaning of injury in the crime of injury [3] Requirements for the establishment of a justifiable act as used in Article 20 of the Criminal Act [4] Whether the crime of extortion is established where a person who holds a monetary claim against the victim receives the delivery of a thing or a pecuniary benefit by means of threats that are difficult to accept as tolerable in light of socially accepted notions (affirmative) [5] Meaning of 'amount of gain' as used in Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes [6] A case holding that, where the transfer price has been agreed upon between the parties to a transaction agreement upon a transfer of an equity interest in a limited partnership company, the 'amount of gain' as used in Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes must be calculated on the basis of that transfer price [7] Degree of the probative value of evidence required for a finding of guilty in a criminal trial
Summary of the holding
[1] 폭력행위등처벌에관한법률 제2조 제2항의 '2인 이상이 공동하여'라고 함은 그 수인간에 소위 공범관계가 존재하는 것을 요건으로 하고, 또 수인이 동일 장소에서 동일 기회에 상호 다른 자의 범행을 인식하고 이를 이용하여 범행을 한 경우임을 요한다. [2] 상해죄에서의 상해는 피해자의 신체의 완전성을 훼손하거나 생리적 기능에 장애를 초래하는 것을 의미한다. [3] 형법 제20조는 "법령에 의한 행위 또는 업무로 인한 행위 기타 사회상규에 위배되지 아니하는 행위는 벌하지 아니한다."고 규정하고 있는데, 어떠한 행위가 정당한 행위로서 위법성이 조각되는 것인지는 구체적인 경우에 따라 합목적적, 합리적으로 가려져야 할 것인바, 정당행위를 인정하려면 첫째 그 행위의 동기나 목적의 정당성, 둘째 행위의 수단이나 방법의 상당성, 셋째 보호이익과 침해이익과의 법익균형성, 넷째 긴급성, 다섯째 그 행위 외에 다른 수단이나 방법이 없다는 보충성 등의 요건을 갖추어야 한다. [4] 피고인이 피해자에 대하여 채권이 있다고 하더라도 그 권리행사를 빙자하여 사회통념상 용인되기 어려운 정도를 넘는 협박을 수단으로 상대방을 외포케 하여 재물의 교부 또는 재산상의 이익을 받았다면 공갈죄가 되는 것이다. [5] 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 소정의 '이득액'이란 거기에 열거된 범죄행위로 인하여 취득하거나 제3자로 하여금 취득하게 한 불법영득의 대상이 된 재물이나 재산상 이익의 가액의 합계인 것이지 궁극적으로 그와 같은 이득을 실현할 것인지, 거기에 어떠한 조건이나 부담이 붙었는지 여부는 영향이 없다. [6] 합자회사에서의 지분의 양도는 사원으로서의 지위의 양도를 가리키는 것으로, 합자회사의 지분의 양도로 인하여 취득하는 것은 지분권, 즉 사원권이므로 그 이득액은 지분권이 표창하는 객관적인 재산적 가치라고 보아야 할 것이고, 그러한 객관적인 재산적 가치는 감정 등을 통하여 객관적으로 확정할 것이지만 거래약정 당사자 사이에 양도가액이 정해져 있으면 그것이 객관적인 재산적 가치를 평가하였다고 볼 수 없는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 양도가액을 지분권이 갖는 객관적인 재산적 가치로 봄이 상당하므로 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 소정의 '이득액'은 그 양도가액을 기준으로 삼아야 한다고 본 사례. [7] 형사재판에 있어서 유죄의 인정은 법관으로 하여금 합리적인 의심을 할 여지가 없을 정도로 공소사실이 진실한 것이라는 확신을 가지게 할 수 있는 증명력을 가진 증거에 의하여야 하고 이러한 정도의 심증을 형성하는 증거가 없다면 설령 피고인에게 유죄의 의심이 간다 하더라도 피고인의 이익으로 판단할 수밖에 없다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인 1에 대한 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 그 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다. 피고인 2, 피고인 3 및 검사의 각 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded as to the portion finding Defendant 1 guilty, and that portion of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The final appeals of Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and the prosecutor are all dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 폭력행위등처벌에관한법률 제2조 제2항 [2] 형법 제257조 제1항 [3] 형법 제20조 [4] 형법 제350조 [5] 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 [2] 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 [7] 형사소송법 제308조
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