Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Limitations on charging under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes where the amount of loss from a breach of trust cannot be calculated, and the determination of the same-person lending limit and refinancing under the Credit Unions Act
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Nov. 13, 2001, 2001Do3531 (judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)·업무상횡령·업무상배임·신용협동조합법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a credit union purchased a building owned by its chairperson and suffered a loss, but the loss amounted to no more than a liquidity impairment so that its amount cannot be calculated, may the matter still be charged as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (breach of trust), and how are lending in excess of the same-person lending limit and refinancing determined?
Holding
Inasmuch as the union acquired ownership of the building, the loss is not an amount equivalent to the purchase price but a liquidity impairment whose amount cannot be specifically calculated; accordingly, the matter may not be charged as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (breach of trust), which imposes aggravated punishment on the basis of the amount of gain. Whether the lending limit has been exceeded is determined based on the person to whom the loan funds are in substance attributed, and refinancing without any transfer of funds does not, absent special circumstances, constitute a loan exceeding the limit.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
재산상 손해는 인정할 수 있으나 그 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없으므로 재산상 이득액을 기준으로 가중 처벌하는 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)죄로 의율할 수 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case in which it was held that, although loss of property may be recognized, since its value cannot be specifically calculated, the defendant cannot be dealt with under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (breach of trust), which imposes aggravated punishment on the basis of the amount of the pecuniary gain
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
이 부분 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다. 원심판결 중 피고인 1의 판시 제1의 죄에 대한 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
This part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court. As to the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the offense under I as stated therein with respect to Defendant 1, the appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
그 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없으므로 재산상 이득액을 기준으로 가중 처벌하는 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)죄로 의율할 수 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case in which it was held that, although loss of property may be recognized, since its value cannot be specifically calculated, the defendant cannot be dealt with under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (breach of trust), which imposes aggravated punishment on the basis of the amount of the pecuniary gain
Factors
- 그 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없으므로
- 처벌규정 자체에서 범죄구성요건에 해당하는 행위유형을 한정하고 있어
- 대출금이 실질적으로 귀속되는 자를 기준으로 할 경우 대출한도를 초과하는 이상
- 실질적으로는 기존채무의 변제기의 연장에 불과하므로
Unofficial English translation
• since its value cannot be specifically calculated,
• since the penal provision itself limits the type of conduct that constitutes the elements of the offense,
• insofar as, judged on the basis of the person to whom the loan funds are substantively attributed, the lending limit is exceeded,
• since in substance it is merely an extension of the due date for repayment of an existing debt,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2001. 6. 29. 선고 2001도2189 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2189 decided June 29, 2001
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 1998. 6. 18. 선고 97도2231 전원합의체 판결(공1998하, 1936), 대법원 2000. 11. 16. 선고 98도3665 전원합의체 판결(공2001상, 100) / [3] 대법원 1999. 11. 12. 선고 99도1280 판결 / [4] 대법원 2001. 6. 29. 선고 2001도2189 판결(공2001하, 1810)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the union acquired consideration by reason of the act of breach of trust, and the amount of loss can be calculated by another method, such as the difference between the purchase price and the actual value, would charging under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes become possible?
We will re-examine this reading if the legal principles for calculating the amount of gain under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, or the same-person lending limit provisions of the Credit Unions Act, are changed.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 6 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The original text contains both an application to a case in which the amount of loss cannot be calculated and general standards concerning the person to whom funds are in substance attributed and the exceptions for refinancing, and thus may be read differently as either Existing test applied or Elements stated.
대출금이 실질적으로 귀속되는 자를 기준으로 할 경우 대출한도를 초과하는 이상Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If, by reason of an act of breach of trust, the union acquired consideration, and the amount of loss can be calculated by another method, such as the difference between the purchase price and the actual value, would charging under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes become possible?” vs Independent “What special circumstances would warrant recognizing even a formal refinancing without transfer of funds as a loan exceeding the lending limit?”
The primary reading asks whether aggravated punishment is possible where the amount of loss is calculated by another method, whereas the independent reading asks what special circumstances would warrant recognizing a refinancing as a loan exceeding the limit.
재산상 손해는 인정할 수 있으나 그 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없으므로 재산상 이득액을 기준으로 가중 처벌하는 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)죄로 의율할 수 없다고 한 사례Raw 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, while recognizing the purchase of the building in the union's name as an occupational breach of trust, upheld the first-instance judgment, which charged the offense as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (breach of trust) on the view that Defendant 1 obtained a benefit equal to each purchase price and the union suffered a loss in the same amount; it determined the exceeding of the limit based on the person to whom the loan funds were in substance attributed, and also found guilty, as loans exceeding the limit, the refinancing loans of KRW 15 million dated July 8, 1996 and KRW 23.3 million dated December 30, 1997.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court accepted as proper the recognition of the act of breach of trust, the guilty finding of occupational breach of trust arising from imprudent loans, and the determination based on the person to whom the funds were in substance attributed. However, because the union acquired complete ownership of the building, it viewed the loss not as an amount equivalent to the purchase price but as a liquidity impairment whose amount cannot be calculated, and corrected the portion charging the offense under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; it further corrected the guilty portion as to the refinancing loans on the ground that they amounted merely to an extension of the due date for repayment, and, on the basis of the joinder of offenses, reversed and remanded the relevant portion, while Defendant 1's final appeal as to the offense set forth in Part I of the judgment as stated was dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases where, by reason of the act of breach of trust, the party acquired no consideration whatsoever, so that the amount paid itself can be specified as the amount of loss
- Cases where, notwithstanding that the transaction was a refinancing, there was an actual transfer of funds, or special circumstances going beyond an extension of the due date for repayment of the existing debt
- Cases where the name of the loan and the person to whom the funds are in substance attributed coincide, so that determination of the limit based on the nominal party is sufficient
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first check whether the Records contain materials enabling the amount of loss or the amount of gain to be specifically calculated by assessing the value of the consideration acquired, and whether there was any actual movement of funds in the loans treated as refinancing.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 업무상 배임죄에 있어서 재산상 손해는 인정할 수 있으나 그 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없으므로 재산상 이득액을 기준으로 가중 처벌하는 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)죄로 의율할 수 없다고 한 사례 [2] 구 신용협동조합법 제96조 제1항 제1호의 규정이 형벌법규의 명확성의 원칙에 반하여 죄형법정주의에 위반되는지 여부(소극) [3] 신용협동조합법상 동일인에 대한 대출한도 초과 여부의 판단 기준(=대출금의 실질적 귀속자) [4] 이른바 '대환'이 신용협동조합법상 금지·처벌의 대상인 '동일조합원 또는 동일인에 대한 대출한도를 초과하는 대출'에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] A case in which it was held that, although loss of property may be recognized in the offense of occupational breach of trust, since its value cannot be specifically calculated, the defendant cannot be dealt with under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (breach of trust), which imposes aggravated punishment on the basis of the amount of the pecuniary gain [2] Whether the provision of Article 96, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the former Credit Unions Act violates the principle of legality in criminal law by contravening the principle of clarity of penal statutes (negative) [3] The criterion for determining whether the lending limit for the same person under the Credit Unions Act has been exceeded (= the person to whom the loan funds are substantively attributed) [4] Whether the so-called 'rollover' constitutes a 'loan exceeding the lending limit for the same union member or the same person', which is subject to prohibition and punishment under the Credit Unions Act (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 업무상 배임죄에 있어서 재산상 손해는 인정할 수 있으나 그 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없으므로 재산상 이득액을 기준으로 가중 처벌하는 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)죄로 의율할 수 없다고 한 사례. [2] 처벌법규의 입법목적이나 그 전체적 내용, 구조 등을 살펴보아 사물의 변별능력을 제대로 갖춘 일반인의 이해와 판단으로서 그의 구성요건 요소에 해당하는 행위유형을 정형화하거나 한정할 합리적 해석기준을 찾을 수 있다면 죄형법정주의가 요구하는 형벌법규의 명확성의 원칙에 반하는 것이 아니라 할 것인바, 구 신용협동조합법(1998. 1. 13. 법률 제5506호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제96조 제1항 제1호는 '이 법 또는 이 법에 의한 명령에 위반하여 자금을 사용 또는 대부하거나 투기의 목적으로 조합 또는 연합회의 재산을 처분하거나 이용한 때'라고 규정하여 처벌규정 자체에서 범죄구성요건에 해당하는 행위유형을 한정하고 있어 처벌규정으로서의 명확성을 지니고 있다고 할 것이므로, 위 규정이 죄형법정주의에 관한 헌법 규정에 위반된다고 할 수 없다. [3] 대출인 명의를 다른 조합원들 명의로 함으로써 각각의 대출명의인을 기준으로 한 대출금은 동일인에 대한 대출한도를 초과하지 않는다고 하더라도, 대출금이 실질적으로 귀속되는 자를 기준으로 할 경우 대출한도를 초과하는 이상 그 대출행위는 구 신용협동조합법(1998. 1. 13. 법률 제5506호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제32조나 개정된 신용협동조합법(1998. 1. 13. 법률 제5506호로 전문 개정되고 2000. 1. 28. 법률 제6204호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제42조에 위배된다. [4] 자금의 수수 없이 형식적으로만 신규대출을 하여 기존채무를 변제하는 이른바 대환은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 형식적으로는 별도의 대출에 해당하나 실질적으로는 기존채무의 변제기의 연장에 불과하므로 신용협동조합법에서 금지·처벌의 대상으로 삼고 있는, '동일조합원 또는 동일인에 대한 대출한도를 초과하는 대출'에 해당하지 아니한다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인 1의 판시 제2의 각 죄에 대한 부분 및 피고인 2, 피고인 3, 피고인 4에 대한 부분을 각 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대전고등법원에 환송한다. 원심판결 중 피고인 1의 판시 제1의 죄에 대한 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below concerning each of the offenses under II as stated therein with respect to Defendant 1, and the parts concerning Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, are each reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court. As to the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the offense under I as stated therein with respect to Defendant 1, the appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제355조 제2항, 제356조, 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률 제3조 제1항 [2] 구 신용협동조합법(1998. 1. 13. 법률 제5506호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제96조 제1항 제1호(현행 제99조 제1항 제1호 참조), 헌법 제12조 [3] 구 신용협동조합법(1998. 1. 13. 법률 제5506호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제32조(현행 제42조 참조), 제96조 제1항 제1호(현행 제99조 제2항 제2호 참조), 구 신용협동조합법(1998. 1. 13. 법률 제5506호로 전문 개정되고 2000. 1. 28. 법률 제6204호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제42조, 제99조 제2항 제2호 [4] 구 신용협동조합법(1998. 1. 13. 법률 제5506호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제32조(현행 제42조 참조), 제96조 제1항 제1호(현행 제99조 제2항 제2호 참조), 구 신용협동조합법(1998. 1. 13. 법률 제5506호로 전문 개정되고 2000. 1. 28. 법률 제6204호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제42조, 제99조 제2항 제2호
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