Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Whether a separate offense of fraud is established by a reinvestment arrangement without any actual transfer of funds in multi-level investment fund fraud, and how the amount of gain is calculated
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Nov. 10, 2000, 2000Do3483 (judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)·방문판매등에관한법률위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a party, seeking to avoid repaying the loan funds it obtained by fraud, recasts the existing loan principal and interest as a new investment without any actual transfer of funds, may that face amount be included in the amount of gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes?
Holding
Since the offense of fraud is already completed when property is delivered by deception, the subsequent arrangement of the existing principal and interest in the form of reinvestment, without any actual transfer of funds, does not constitute a new infringement of a legally protected interest and therefore does not amount to a separate offense of fraud. The Supreme Court held that the amount of gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is the amount of actual gain, and therefore only the loan funds actually delivered may be included.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 후 피해자를 기망하여 편취한 재물의 반환을 회피할 목적으로 현실적인 자금의 수수 없이 기존 차입원리금을 새로이 투자하는 형식을 취하였다 하더라도 이는 새로운 법익을 침해하는 것이 아니므로 별도로 사기죄를 구성하지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Thereafter, even if, after obtaining property by deception of the victim, the form of newly investing the principal and interest of existing loans was taken for the purpose of evading the return of the property so obtained without any actual transfer of funds, this does not infringe upon any new legal interest and thus does not constitute a separate offense of fraud.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인들에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it concerns the defendants, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그 입법취지에 비추어 이득액은 실질적인 이득액을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
In light of such legislative purpose, the amount of gain means the substantial amount of gain.
Factors
- 기망으로 인한 재물교부가 있으면 그 자체로써 피해자의 재산침해가 되어 이로써 곧 사기죄가 성립하고
- 현실적인 자금의 수수 없이 기존 차입원리금을 새로이 투자하는 형식을 취하였다 하더라도
- 이득액은 실질적인 이득액을 말한다
- 수인 사이에 순차적으로 또는 암묵적으로 상통하여 그 의사의 결합이 이루어지면 공모관계가 성립하고
- 범행의 회수, 수단과 방법, 동기 등 제반 사정을 참작하여 사기의 습벽이 인정되는 경우에는 상습성을 인정하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• where property is delivered as a result of deception, the victim's property is infringed thereby itself, and the offense of fraud is immediately established by the same,
• even if the form of newly investing the principal and interest of existing loans was taken without any actual transfer of funds,
• the amount of gain means the substantial amount of gain
• where, among several persons, a meeting of minds is formed sequentially or tacitly, a conspiracy relationship is established, and
• where a habitual tendency to commit fraud is recognized in consideration of all circumstances such as the number of times the offense was committed, the means and method, and the motive, habitualness must be recognized
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1995. 6. 30. 선고 95도825 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 95Do825 decided June 30, 1995
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1991. 2. 26. 선고 90도2276 판결(공1991, 1120), 대법원 1995. 2. 3. 선고 94도2134 판결(공1995상, 1195), 대법원 1999. 6. 25. 선고 98도3927 판결(공1999하, 1553) / [2][4][5] 대법원 2000. 7. 7. 선고 2000도1899 판결(공2000하, 1911) / [2] 대법원 1998. 3. 27. 선고 98도30 판결(공1998상, 1261), 대법원 1998. 11. 24. 선고 98도2654 판결(공1999상, 81), 대법원 2000. 3. 14. 선고 99도4923 판결(공2000상, 1011) / [3] 대법원 1983. 10. 25. 선고 83도2448 판결(공1983, 1797), 대법원 1986. 6. 10. 선고 86도778 판결(공1986, 904), 대법원 1995. 7. 11. 선고 95도955 판결(공1995하, 2846) / [4][5] 대법원 1995. 6. 30. 선고 95도825 판결(공1995하, 2691) / [5] 대법원 2000. 7. 7. 선고 2000도1899 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
In the course of arranging the reinvestment, if some additional funds were in fact transferred, how should the scope of the amount to be included in the gain be determined?
If subsequent decisions emerge concerning the concept of the amount of gain under Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, or the treatment of reinvested amounts in multi-level investment fund fraud, this reading will be reviewed again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
A comparison with an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, showed agreement on 6 of the 8 axes, and the readings diverged on Axis 3 (Disposition) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 3 (Disposition): Primary “Reversed and remanded” vs Independent “Partly reversed and remanded”
Since the decretal part states that the portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the defendants is reversed and remanded, the primary reading may reflect the type of disposition, while the independent reading may reflect the fact that the scope of the reversal was limited to specified portions.
원심판결 중 피고인들에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “In the course of arranging the reinvestment, if some additional funds were in fact transferred, how should the scope of the amount to be included in the gain be determined?” vs Independent “Even where the victims relinquished new property rights in the course of the reinvestment, can the establishment of a separate offense of fraud nevertheless be denied?”
The primary reading asks about the scope of inclusion in the amount of gain where some additional funds were transferred, while the independent reading asks about the establishment of a separate offense of fraud where new property rights were relinquished.
그 후 피해자를 기망하여 편취한 재물의 반환을 회피할 목적으로 현실적인 자금의 수수 없이 기존 차입원리금을 새로이 투자하는 형식을 취하였다 하더라도 이는 새로운 법익을 침해하는 것이 아니므로 별도로 사기죄를 구성하지 않는다.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 found that the defendants conspired with one another and, habitually and by deception that 20% interest would be paid over 15 days on investments of KRW 500,000 per unit, obtained by fraud from 2,277 victims over 6,756 instances an aggregate of KRW 22,364,000,000, and from 838 victims over 2,380 instances an aggregate of KRW 7,867,000,000, in the name of loan funds, and it recognized the entire face amounts of the loan certificates as the amount of gain. It also found guilty the determinations that the arrangement constituted a multi-level marketing organization under the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, that there was sequential conspiracy, and that habituality was established notwithstanding the absence of any prior conviction for fraud.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court accepted the determinations of the court below as to whether the arrangement constituted a multi-level marketing organization, conspiracy, and habituality, but held that the portion in which certificates were issued while arranging the existing principal and interest as a new loan without any actual transfer of funds did not constitute a separate offense of fraud, so that the face amounts thereof should have been excluded from the amount of gain, and it found misapprehension of legal principles as to the amount of gain and failure to exhaust deliberations. The grounds for final appeal of Defendant 1 were not accepted, since the appeal had been taken only on the ground of improper sentencing, but the common grounds for reversal were made applicable to him pursuant to Article 392 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and, because a single sentence had been imposed for concurrent offenses, the entire portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the defendants was reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where, at the time of the reinvestment, new funds were actually delivered by the victims, so that a separate infringement of property occurred
- Where there was no deception at the stage of the original loan, and deception first occurred at the later stage of recommending the reinvestment
- Where the fraud consists not in obtaining property but in acquiring a pecuniary benefit, and the discharge of the existing debt itself is evaluated as a new benefit
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it is first necessary to determine, for each loan certificate, whether the actual receipt of funds is confirmed by deposit and withdrawal records, and whether deception existed from the stage of the original loan.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 양형부당만을 이유로 한 피고인의 항소에 대하여 항소심이 제1심판결을 직권파기한 후 제1심과 같은 형을 선고한 경우, 피고인이 항소심판결에 대하여 법리오해나 사실 오인을 상고이유로 삼을 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 공모공동정범에 있어서 공모관계의 성립 요건 [3] 상습사기에 있어서 상습성의 의미 [4] 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 소정의 '이득액'의 의미 [5] 피해자를 기망하여 재물을 편취한 후 그 반환을 회피할 목적으로 현실적인 자금의 수수 없이 기존 차입원리금을 새로이 투자하는 형식을 취한 경우, 별도의 사기죄가 성립하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where the court of appeal reversed the judgment of the court of first instance ex officio on the ground of unfairness of sentence alone raised in the defendant's appeal and imposed the same sentence as that of the court of first instance, the defendant may raise misapprehension of legal principles or misfinding of fact as grounds for final appeal against the judgment of the appellate court (negative) [2] Requirements for the formation of a conspiracy relationship in cases of joint principal offenders by conspiracy [3] Meaning of habitualness in habitual fraud [4] Meaning of 'the amount of gain' as used in Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes [5] Whether, after obtaining property by deception of the victim, a separate offense of fraud is established where, for the purpose of evading the return thereof, the form of newly investing the principal and interest of existing loans was taken without any actual transfer of funds (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 피고인이 양형부당만을 이유로 항소를 하였고 이에 대하여 항소심이 제1심판결을 직권으로 파기한 후 제1심과 같은 형을 선고한 사건에서 피고인은 항소심판결에 대하여 법리오해나 사실 오인의 점을 상고이유로 삼을 수 없다. [2] 2인 이상이 범죄에 공동 가공하는 공범관계에서 공모는 법률상 어떤 정형을 요구하는 것이 아니고 2인 이상이 공모하여 어느 범죄에 공동 가공하여 그 범죄를 실현하려는 의사의 결합만 있으면 되는 것으로서, 비록 전체의 모의과정이 없었다고 하더라도 수인 사이에 순차적으로 또는 암묵적으로 상통하여 그 의사의 결합이 이루어지면 공모관계가 성립하고, 이러한 공모가 이루어진 이상 실행행위에 직접 관여하지 아니한 자라도 다른 공모자의 행위에 대하여 공동정범으로서의 형사책임을 진다. [3] 상습사기에 있어서의 상습성이라 함은 반복하여 사기행위를 하는 습벽으로서 행위자의 속성을 말하고, 이러한 습벽의 유무를 판단함에 있어서는 사기의 전과가 중요한 판단자료가 되나 사기의 전과가 없다고 하더라도 범행의 회수, 수단과 방법, 동기 등 제반 사정을 참작하여 사기의 습벽이 인정되는 경우에는 상습성을 인정하여야 한다. [4] 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항에서 말하는 이득액은 단순일죄의 이득액이나 혹은 포괄일죄가 성립하는 경우의 이득액의 합산액을 의미하는 것이지만, 그 입법취지에 비추어 이득액은 실질적인 이득액을 말한다. [5] 재물편취를 내용으로 하는 사기죄에 있어서는 기망으로 인한 재물교부가 있으면 그 자체로써 피해자의 재산침해가 되어 이로써 곧 사기죄가 성립하고, 그 후 피해자를 기망하여 편취한 재물의 반환을 회피할 목적으로 현실적인 자금의 수수 없이 기존 차입원리금을 새로이 투자하는 형식을 취하였다 하더라도 이는 새로운 법익을 침해하는 것이 아니므로 별도로 사기죄를 구성하지 않는다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인들에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed insofar as it concerns the defendants, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제383조 [2] 형법 제30조 [3] 형법 제347조, 제351조 [4] 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 [5] 형법 제347조
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