Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
How the amount of gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is calculated when maritime duty-free fuel is obtained by fraud, and whether receiving valuables without any intent to make a solicitation violates the former Attorney-at-Law Act
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Mar. 10, 2006, 2005Do9387 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)·석유사업법위반·변호사법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where duty-free fuel is purchased at a low price and obtained by fraud, on what basis is the amount of gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes calculated, and is the offense of violating the former Attorney-at-Law Act established even where valuables are received, in the name of having an internal inquiry dropped, without any actual intent to make a solicitation?
Holding
The amount of gain is the sum of the value of the fuel obtained by fraud, and that value is assessed not at the duty-free fuel price actually paid, but at the price that would have paid had there been no deception, or at market value. The Supreme Court held that the mere receipt of valuables constitutes the offense of violating Article 90, subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, and that even where there was no actual intent to make a solicitation, it makes no difference if the receipt was for the purpose of gaining an advantage for oneself.
Points at issue, verbatim
상대방을 기망하여 부당하게 저가로 재물을 매수함으로써 편취한 경우, 그 재물 가액의 평가방법
Unofficial English translation
Method of evaluating the value of the property where a person, having deceived the other party, obtains by fraud property by purchasing it at an unreasonably low price
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Stated in the decision
일반 시중가격을 기준으로 편취된 재물인 유류의 가액을 평가하여 이득액을 산정한 원심의 조치는 위와 같은 법리에 따른 것으로서 정당하고
Unofficial English translation
The measure taken by the court below, which calculated the amount of gain by evaluating the value of the fuel, the property obtained by fraud, on the basis of the general market price, is consistent with the above legal principle and therefore just, and
Factors
- 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항
- 그 재물 가액의 평가방법
- 실제 청탁의 의사 없이 금품을 교부받은 경우
- 구 변호사법 제90조 제1호 위반죄의 성립 여부
Unofficial English translation
• Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes
• Method of evaluating the value of the property
• Where money or valuables are received without any actual intention to make a solicitation
• Whether the crime of violating subparagraph 1 of Article 90 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act is established
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1989. 4. 11. 선고 88도1247 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 88Do1247 decided April 11, 1989
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1989. 4. 11. 선고 88도1247 판결(공1989, 781), 대법원 2000. 2. 25. 선고 99도4305 판결(공2000상, 896) / [3] 대법원 1986. 3. 25. 선고 86도436 판결(공1986, 728)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the price that would have paid absent the deception and the market value differ from each other, which should be taken as the basis, and what are the special circumstances that exclude the market value basis?
We will re-examine this reading if the case law on 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 on the constituent elements of the current Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, changes.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
As compared with an independent reading by another family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 7 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on axis 4 (Form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Application to the facts” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Since the original text deals with the meaning of the amount of gain, the method of assessing the value of property, and whether an offense is established where valuables are received without any intent to make a solicitation, it may be read differently, as an application to a type of conduct or as a general assessment, and as a statement of the requirements for establishment.
공무원이 취급하는 사건 등에 관하여 실제 청탁의 의사 없이 금품을 교부받은 경우, 구 변호사법 제90조 제1호 위반죄의 성립 여부(적극)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, in the course of being supplied maritime duty-free fuel from the victim, an oil refining company, assessed the value of the fuel not on the basis of the duty-free fuel price actually paid, but on the basis of the ordinary market price inclusive of all taxes and public charges, and calculated the amount of gain on that basis; it found that the defendant had conspired, and treated the receipt of valuables in the name of having an internal inquiry dropped as a violation of the former Attorney-at-Law Act. The defendant argued that the disposal profit should be regarded as the amount of gain, and that there had been no internal inquiry and therefore no violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, in accordance with its earlier decisions that the amount of gain is the sum of the value of the property that became the object of unlawful acquisition and that whether the gain was actually realized has no effect, held that the court below's calculation on the basis of the market price was proper. It further held that the receipt of valuables in itself constitutes the offense of violating the former Attorney-at-Law Act, and that whether a separate offense of fraud is established where the valuables were obtained by a lie is a different matter, and dismissed the final appeal in its entirety.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases where, owing to special circumstances reserved by the judgment, the price that would have paid absent the deception or the market value can hardly be taken as the value of the property
- Cases where the object obtained by fraud is not property but a pecuniary benefit, making it difficult to separately determine a market value or a normal price
- Cases where the valuables were not delivered for the purpose of gaining an advantage for oneself, and thus the receipt is not assessed as being in the name of a solicitation
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first check whether the normal price or the market value of the property obtained by fraud is established on the record, and whether the receipt of valuables was in the name of a solicitation or intercession concerning a case handled by a public official and was for the purpose of gaining an advantage for oneself.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항의 ‘이득액’의 의미 [2] 상대방을 기망하여 부당하게 저가로 재물을 매수함으로써 편취한 경우, 그 재물 가액의 평가방법 [3] 공무원이 취급하는 사건 등에 관하여 실제 청탁의 의사 없이 금품을 교부받은 경우, 구 변호사법 제90조 제1호 위반죄의 성립 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of "amount of gain" in Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes [2] Method of evaluating the value of the property where a person, having deceived the other party, obtains by fraud property by purchasing it at an unreasonably low price [3] Whether the crime of violating subparagraph 1 of Article 90 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act is established where, with respect to a case handled by a public official and the like, money or valuables are received without any actual intention to make a solicitation (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고 이후의 구금일수 중 100일을 원심판시 제1의 각 죄에 대한 본형에 산입한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. 100 days out of the period of detention after the final appeal shall be included in the term of the principal punishment for each of the offenses under 1 as stated in the judgment of the court below.
Provisions referred to
[1] 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 [2] 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항, 형법 제347조 제1항 [3] 구 변호사법(2000. 1. 28. 법률 제6207호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제90조 제1호(현행 제111조 참조)
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