Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Calculation of the Amount of Gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes When an Advance Payment Guarantee Certificate Is Obtained by Fraud, and the Scope within Which a Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act Is Established for Receiving Money or Goods Ostensibly for Solicitation
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Nov. 24, 2006, 2005Do5567 (judgment)
Case name: 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세)·제3자뇌물교부·제3자뇌물취득(일부인정된죄명:변호사법위반)·위증·위증교사·사기·특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)·근로기준법위반·사문서위조·위조사문서행사
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a party obtains an advance payment guarantee certificate by deceiving the Construction Workers' Mutual Aid Association and submits it to the ordering party, what is the amount of gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and is the offense of delivering bribes established against a person who received money or goods ostensibly for solicitation, in addition to the offense of violating former Article 90 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act?
Holding
The amount of gain is the benefit of being able to use the advance payment refund guarantee obligation as collateral, the value of which is in principle equivalent to the guarantee limit amount, and whether the gain was ultimately realized has no effect. If a person receives money or goods in the name of solicitation for his or her own gain, the offense of violating former Article 90 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act is established at that time, and in such a case there is no room for the offense of delivering bribes to be established.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그로 인하여 건설업자가 취득하는 재산상 이익은 건설공제조합이 선급금보증계약에 의하여 부담한 선급금 반환 보증채무를 자신의 건설공사 계약을 위한 담보로 이용할 수 있는 이익이고 그 가액(이득액)은 원칙적으로 선급금 반환채무 보증한도액 상당이다.
Unofficial English translation
the pecuniary benefit that the construction contractor acquires by reason thereof is the benefit of being able to use the obligation to return the advance payment, which the Construction Mutual Aid Association has assumed under the advance payment guarantee contract, as security for his own construction contract, and the value thereof (the amount of gain) is, in principle, equivalent to the guarantee limit for the obligation to return the advance payment.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
공무원이 취급하는 사건 또는 사무에 관하여 청탁한다는 명목으로 금품을 받으면 그 즉시 위 조항 위반죄가 성립하는 것이고 금품을 교부받은 사람이 실제로 청탁을 하였는지 여부는 죄의 성립에 영향을 미치지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
if money or valuables are received under the pretext of making an approach in connection with a case or affairs handled by a public official, the offense of violating the aforesaid provision is established at that very moment, and whether the person who received the money or valuables actually made an approach does not affect the establishment of the offense.
Factors
- 불법영득의 대상이 된 재물이나 재산상 이익의 가액
- 궁극적으로 그와 같은 이득이 실현되었는지 여부는 영향이 없는 것이며
- 선급금 반환 보증채무를 자신의 건설공사 계약을 위한 담보로 이용할 수 있는 이익
- 자기 자신을 제외한 모든 자의 사건 또는 사무
- 자기 자신의 이득을 취하기 위하여
Unofficial English translation
• the value of the chattel or pecuniary benefit that became the object of unlawful acquisition
• whether such gain has ultimately been realized has no effect on the matter, and
• the benefit of being able to use the obligation to return the advance payment as security for one's own construction contract
• the cases or affairs of all persons other than oneself
• in order to obtain gain for oneself
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1995. 8. 25. 선고 94도2132 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 94Do2132 decided August 25, 1995
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1995. 8. 25. 선고 94도2132 판결(공1995하, 3310), 대법원 2000. 4. 25. 선고 2000도137 판결(공2000상, 1360), 대법원 2006. 5. 26. 선고 2006도1614 판결(공2006하, 1224) / [2] 대법원 1995. 9. 15. 선고 94도940 판결(공1995하, 3467) / [4] 대법원 1986. 3. 25. 선고 86도436 판결(공1986, 728)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Under the standard that treats the guarantee limit amount of the advance payment refund obligation as the amount of gain in principle, in what circumstances must the amount of gain exceptionally be calculated differently?
If the method of calculating the amount of gain under Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes or the constituent elements under Article 111 of the current Attorney-at-Law Act are amended, this reading will be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another line of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 6 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on axis 5 (Factors) and axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “The value of the chattel or pecuniary benefit that became the object of unlawful acquisition / Whether such gain was ultimately realized has no effect / The benefit of being able to use the advance payment refund guarantee obligation as collateral for one's own construction contract / The Case or affairs of all persons other than oneself / For the purpose of obtaining one's own gain” vs Independent “The value of the chattel or pecuniary benefit that became the object of unlawful acquisition / The guarantee limit amount of the advance payment refund obligation / If it is no more than a means to facilitate the act of soliciting the public official in charge / The title of church administration office director, which does not itself exist as a position in the church's regular organizational establishment / For the purpose of obtaining one's own gain”
While the value of the object of unlawful acquisition and the purpose of obtaining one's own gain overlap, the first reading emphasizes whether the gain was realized and the benefit of use as collateral, whereas the independent reading emphasizes the instrumental nature of the employee appearance and the non-existence of the position, so more than half do not match.
그로 인하여 건설업자가 취득하는 재산상 이익은 건설공제조합이 선급금보증계약에 의하여 부담한 선급금 반환 보증채무를 자신의 건설공사 계약을 위한 담보로 이용할 수 있는 이익이고 그 가액(이득액)은 원칙적으로 선급금 반환채무 보증한도액 상당이다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Under the standard that treats the guarantee limit amount of the advance payment refund obligation as the amount of gain in principle, in what circumstances must the amount of gain exceptionally be calculated differently?” vs Independent “How is the relationship between the establishment of the two offenses where the money or goods received include both the actor's own remuneration and the money to be delivered to the public official?”
The first reading asks about exceptions to the calculation of the amount of gain other than the guarantee limit amount, while the independent reading asks about the relationship of establishment of the offenses where one's own remuneration and the money for delivery to the public official are mixed.
그로 인하여 건설업자가 취득하는 재산상 이익은 건설공제조합이 선급금보증계약에 의하여 부담한 선급금 반환 보증채무를 자신의 건설공사 계약을 위한 담보로 이용할 수 있는 이익이고 그 가액(이득액)은 원칙적으로 선급금 반환채무 보증한도액 상당이다.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 held that, after submitting an advance payment guarantee certificate with a guarantee limit amount of 3.08 billion won and receiving payment of 2.9 billion won out of the advance payment, the offense of fraud as to pecuniary benefit equivalent to the guarantee limit amount was completed, and rejected Defendant 1's argument that valuation was impossible or that the matter amounted to attempted fraud. As to Defendant 2, the court below found the act of receiving money in the name of solicitation while using the title of church administration office director to be guilty, applying Article 111 of the current Attorney-at-Law Act, and held that the offense of delivering bribes with respect to the 30 million won in the name of averting a tax audit was not established for insufficient proof.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below's view of the amount of gain as equivalent to the guarantee limit amount was justified, and held that the application of Article 111 of the current Attorney-at-Law Act in place of former Article 90 subparagraph 1 was erroneous but, since the constituent elements and the statutory penalty are the same, had no effect on the judgment. The Supreme Court also upheld the court below's holding that the offense of delivering bribes is not established, on the ground that the 30 million won was used as an expense or consideration for the solicitation activity and the method of its use was left to Defendant 2, and dismissed the final appeals of both the defendants and the prosecution.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the person who received the money or goods merely agreed to pass on, as received, the money or goods to be provided to the public official who is the counterpart of the solicitation
- Where the appearance of being an employee of an organization goes no further than being a means for the solicitation, and the person actually holds an official position in the organization's ordinary Work under the regular establishment, so that the matter may be regarded as his or her own Case or affairs
- Where the guarantee obtained by deception was not used as collateral, or there are special circumstances permitting the value of the benefit to be specified differently from the guarantee limit amount
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first check whether there is evidence that at the time the money or goods were handed over the money was to be delivered to the public official as is, and whether the actor was involved in ordinary Work in a position under the organization's regular organizational establishment.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항에서 말하는 이득액의 의미 및 건설업자가 건설공제조합을 기망하여 선급금보증서를 발급받아 건설공사 발주자에게 제출한 경우 그 이득액(=선급금 반환채무 보증한도액) [2] 단체 소속 직원의 외관을 가진 사람이 처리하는 단체의 사건 또는 사무가 구 변호사법 제90조 제1호에 정한 자신의 사건 또는 사무에 해당하는지 여부(소극) 및 공무원이 취급하는 사건 또는 사무에 관하여 청탁 명목으로 금품을 받은 사람이 실제로 청탁하여야만 위 조항 위반죄가 성립하는지 여부(소극) [3] 교회의 정식 조직 편제상 직위 자체가 존재하지 않는 교회 사무처장 직함을 사용하는 사람이 위 교회측으로부터 공무원에 대한 청탁 명목으로 금원을 수수한 것이 구 변호사법 제90조 제1호 위반죄에 해당한다고 한 사례 [4] 자신의 이득을 위하여 공무원이 취급하는 사건 등에 관한 청탁 명목으로 금품을 교부받은 경우, 구 변호사법 제90조 제1호 위반죄 외에 형법상 증뢰물전달죄가 성립하는지 여부(소극)
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, where a construction contractor, by deceiving the Construction Mutual Aid Association, obtained an advance payment guarantee certificate and submitted it to the ordering party of the construction work, the amount of gain thereof (= the guarantee limit for the obligation to return the advance payment) [2] Whether a person bearing the appearance of an employee of an organization is handling a case or affairs of an organization within the meaning of his own case or affairs as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 90 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (negative), and whether a person who received money or valuables under the pretext of making an approach in connection with a case or affairs handled by a public official must actually make an approach in order for the offense of violating the aforesaid provision to be established (negative) [3] A case in which it was held that where a person using the title of Director of the Church Secretariat, a title of a position that does not itself exist in the Church's formal organizational structure, received money from the Church under the pretext of making an approach to a public official, such conduct falls within the offense of violating subparagraph 1 of Article 90 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act [4] Where money or valuables were delivered to a person under the pretext of making an approach concerning a case, etc. handled by a public official for the purpose of obtaining gain for himself, whether, in addition to the offense of violating subparagraph 1 of Article 90 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, the crime of delivering bribe goods under the Criminal Act is established (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 소정의 이득액이란 거기에 열거된 범죄행위로 인하여 취득하거나 제3자로 하여금 취득하게 한 불법영득의 대상이 된 재물이나 재산상 이익의 가액을 말하는 것이고 궁극적으로 그와 같은 이득이 실현되었는지 여부는 영향이 없는 것이며, 건설업자가 건설산업기본법에 의한 건설공제조합을 기망하여 선급금보증계약을 체결하고 선급금보증서를 발급받아 건설공사 발주자에게 제출한 경우 그로 인하여 건설업자가 취득하는 재산상 이익은 건설공제조합이 선급금보증계약에 의하여 부담한 선급금 반환 보증채무를 자신의 건설공사 계약을 위한 담보로 이용할 수 있는 이익이고 그 가액(이득액)은 원칙적으로 선급금 반환채무 보증한도액 상당이다. [2] 구 변호사법(1996. 12. 12. 법률 제5177호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제90조 제1호에서 정한 공무원이 취급하는 사건 또는 사무는 자기 자신을 제외한 모든 자의 사건 또는 사무를 가리키는 것으로 해석하는 것이 상당한데, 단체에 소속된 직원의 외관을 갖춘 것이 그 단체가 관련된 사건 또는 사무의 처리를 위하여 담당공무원에게 청탁하는 행위를 용이하게 하기 위한 수단에 불과하다면 그러한 외관을 가진 사람이 처리하는 단체의 사건 또는 사무를 행위자 자신의 사건 또는 사무에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없다. 또 공무원이 취급하는 사건 또는 사무에 관하여 청탁한다는 명목으로 금품을 받으면 그 즉시 위 조항 위반죄가 성립하는 것이고 금품을 교부받은 사람이 실제로 청탁을 하였는지 여부는 죄의 성립에 영향을 미치지 않는다. [3] 교회의 정식 조직 편제상 직위 자체가 존재하지 않는 교회 사무처장 직함을 사용하는 사람이 위 교회측으로부터 공무원에 대한 청탁 명목으로 금원을 수수한 것이 구 변호사법(1996. 12. 12. 법률 제5177호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제90조 제1호 위반죄에 해당한다고 한 사례. [4] 공무원이 취급하는 사건 또는 사무에 관한 청탁을 받고 청탁 상대방인 공무원에게 제공할 금품을 받아 그 공무원에게 단순히 전달한 경우와는 달리, 자기 자신의 이득을 취하기 위하여 공무원이 취급하는 사건 또는 사무에 관하여 청탁한다는 등의 명목으로 금품 등을 교부받으면 그로써 곧 구 변호사법(1996. 12. 12. 법률 제5177호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제90조 제1호 위반죄가 성립되고 이와 같은 경우에는 형법 제133조 제2항 증뢰물전달죄는 성립할 여지가 없다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항, 형법 제347조 [2] 구 변호사법(1996. 12. 12. 법률 제5177호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제90조 제1호(현행 제111조 참조) [3] 구 변호사법(1996. 12. 12. 법률 제5177호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제90조 제1호(현행 제111조 참조) [4] 구 변호사법(1996. 12. 12. 법률 제5177호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제90조 제1호(현행 제111조 참조), 형법 제133조 제2항
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