Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Formal Reinvestment of Fraudulently Obtained Principal and Interest and Calculation of the Amount of Gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Single Comprehensive Offense of Habitual Fraud and Double Prosecution
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, July 24, 2001, 2001Do2196 (judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)·사기
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where borrowed principal and interest obtained by fraud are treated as a new investment in form only, without any actual transfer of funds, must that amount also be included in the amount of gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and, once prosecution for habitual fraud has been instituted, may part of it be separately prosecuted as simple fraud?
Holding
The amount of gain is the aggregate of gains actually obtained, so an amount that was merely reinvested in form without any actual transfer of funds does not constitute a separate offense of fraud and must be excluded from the amount of gain. The effect of the prosecution instituted for habitual fraud extends to all criminal facts recognized as identical up to the time of the pronouncement of judgment; therefore, if part of it is prosecuted as a separate offense of fraud, this constitutes double prosecution irrespective of the time of the offense.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 후 피해자를 기망하여 편취한 재물의 반환을 회피할 목적으로 현실적인 자금의 수수 없이 이미 있던 차입원리금을 주식 구입자금 또는 신규 차입금에 새로이 투자하는 형식을 취하였다 하더라도 이는 새로운 법익을 침해하는 것이 아니어서 별도의 죄를 구성하지 아니한다.
Unofficial English translation
Even if, thereafter, with the purpose of avoiding the return of the property fraudulently obtained by deceiving the victim, one takes the form of newly investing the already existing borrowed principal and interest into funds for the purchase of stocks or a new loan, without an actual transfer of funds, this does not infringe upon a new legally protected interest and therefore does not constitute a separate offense.
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
이득액은 범죄행위로 인하여 취득한 실질적인 이득의 합산액을 뜻하고
Unofficial English translation
the amount of gain means the aggregate amount of the substantive gain obtained through the criminal act, and
Factors
- 범죄행위로 인하여 취득한 실질적인 이득의 합산액
- 현실적인 자금의 수수 없이 이미 있던 차입원리금을 주식 구입자금 또는 신규 차입금에 새로이 투자하는 형식을 취하였다
- 사기의 전과는 물론 범행의 횟수, 수단과 방법, 동기 등 여러 사정을 참작하여야 한다
- 공소제기의 효력이 미치는 시적 범위는 사실심리가 가능한 마지막 시점인 판결선고시를 기준으로 삼아야 하므로
Unofficial English translation
• the aggregate amount of the substantive gain obtained through the criminal act
• One took the form of newly investing the already existing borrowed principal and interest into funds for the purchase of stocks or a new loan, without an actual transfer of funds
• In addition to prior convictions for fraud, various circumstances such as the number of offenses, the means and methods, and the motive must be taken into account
• because the temporal scope of the effect of the institution of a public prosecution must be based on the time of the pronouncement of judgment, which is the last point at which the facts can be tried
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2001. 4. 10. 선고 2001도661 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2001Do661 decided April 10, 2001
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2000. 11. 10. 선고 2000도3483 판결(공2001상, 91) / [1] 대법원 1995. 6. 30. 선고 95도825 판결(공1995하, 2691), 대법원 2001. 4. 10. 선고 2001도661 판결(공2001상, 1176) / [3] 대법원 1982. 9. 7. 선고 82도1463 판결(공1982, 978), 대법원 1983. 4. 26. 선고 82도2829, 82감도612 판결(공1983, 926), 대법원 1999. 11. 26. 선고 99도3929, 99감도97 판결(공2000상, 114)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Even where, in the course of the formal reinvestment, additional pecuniary benefits such as an amount equivalent to interest are obtained by fresh deception, may it be said that no separate offense is established?
If case law concerning the concept of the amount of gain under Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, or concerning the scope of the effect of the prosecution instituted against a habitual offender, changes, this reading will be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the initial reading, all eight axes matched.
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, finding that the defendant who operated a multi-level financial product sales organization habitually obtained by fraud a total of 2,629,900,000 won from the victims, recognized as the amount of gain the sum total of both the stock prices entered in the stock issuance register and the amounts entered in the capital contribution certificates, and, on the premise that the offense of fraud that was separately prosecuted was not a manifestation of the habit of fraud, found the defendant guilty of the simple offense of fraud.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that only the borrowed funds actually received should have been aggregated and that the amounts formally reinvested as principal and interest of funds previously obtained by fraud should have been excluded. Further, considering the defendant's prior convictions for breach of trust and fraud in 1990 and the fact that he began committing offenses in a similar manner a little over seven months after the fraud in this Case, the Court held that the offense of fraud also stands in a single comprehensive offense relationship with the habitual fraud and that the prosecution instituted in respect thereof constituted double prosecution, and reversed the judgment of the court below.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where, instead of the form of reinvesting the principal and interest at maturity, there were borrowings or stock purchases in which new funds were actually transferred
- Where the separately prosecuted offense of fraud can hardly be regarded as a manifestation of the habit of fraud in light of prior convictions, number of instances, means and methods, and motive
- Where the offense of fraud committed after the pronouncement of judgment in the earlier-prosecuted habitual fraud case has been prosecuted
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, check up to what point, among the amounts entered in the books and certificates, the movement of actual funds is verified, and whether identity of the habit is recognized between the separately prosecuted offense and the habitual fraud in respect of means and methods, the interval of time, and the like.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 소정의 '이득액'의 의미 및 피해자를 기망하여 재물을 편취한 후 그 반환을 회피할 목적으로 현실적인 자금의 수수 없이 기존 차입 원리금을 새로이 투자하는 형식을 취한 경우, 별도의 사기죄가 성립하는지 여부(소극) [2] 상습사기에 있어서 상습성 유무의 판단 기준 [3] 상습범에 있어서 공소제기의 효력이 미치는 범위
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of the "amount of gain" as used in Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and whether, where a person, after fraudulently obtaining property by deceiving the victim, takes the form of newly investing the existing borrowed principal and interest, with the purpose of avoiding the return thereof and without an actual transfer of funds, a separate offense of fraud is established (negative) [2] The standard for determining the existence of habitual nature in habitual fraud [3] The scope of the effect of the institution of a public prosecution in the case of a habitual offender
Summary of the holding
[1] 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항의 이득액은 범죄행위로 인하여 취득한 실질적인 이득의 합산액을 뜻하고, 사기죄는 기망으로 인한 재물의 교부가 있으면 바로 성립하고, 그 후 피해자를 기망하여 편취한 재물의 반환을 회피할 목적으로 현실적인 자금의 수수 없이 이미 있던 차입원리금을 주식 구입자금 또는 신규 차입금에 새로이 투자하는 형식을 취하였다 하더라도 이는 새로운 법익을 침해하는 것이 아니어서 별도의 죄를 구성하지 아니한다. [2] 상습사기에 있어서의 상습성이라 함은 반복하여 사기행위를 하는 습벽으로서 이러한 습벽의 유무를 판단함에 있어서는 사기의 전과는 물론 범행의 횟수, 수단과 방법, 동기 등 여러 사정을 참작하여야 한다. [3] 상습범에 있어서 공소제기의 효력은 공소가 제기된 범죄사실과 동일성이 인정되는 범죄사실 전체에 미치고, 또한 공소제기의 효력이 미치는 시적 범위는 사실심리가 가능한 마지막 시점인 판결선고시를 기준으로 삼아야 하므로, 검사가 일단 상습사기죄로 공소를 제기한 후(단순 사기죄로 공소를 제기하였다가 상습사기죄로 공소장이 변경된 경우도 포함된다) 그 공소의 효력이 미치는 위 기준시까지의 사기행위 일부를 별개의 독립된 사기죄로 공소를 제기하는 것은 그 공소사실인 사기 범행이 이루어진 시기가 먼저 공소를 제기한 상습사기의 범행 이전이거나 이후인지 여부를 묻지 않고 공소가 제기된 동일사건에 대한 이중기소에 해당되어 허용될 수 없다.
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
[1] 형법 제347조 제1항, 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 [2] 형법 제347조, 제351조 [3] 형법 제347조, 제351조, 형사소송법 제327조 제3호
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