Single Comprehensive Offense for a Bank Branch Manager's Successive Bad Loans and Calculation of Damages as the Full Amount of New Loans

Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check

7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16

When compared with an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on the 8th axis (Open question and revisit condition).

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 (Gwangju High Court, Jeonju Division, 2006No35) held that the respective loans by Defendant 1, the branch manager, and Defendant 2, the deputy branch manager, were made with a single criminal intent in the course of a series of processes to resolve Woori Bank's non-performing loan problem, and that the victim, the beneficiary, and the modus operandi of the offenses were the same, and therefore regarded them as a single comprehensive offense. It treated the amount of pecuniary damage as the full amount of the new loan funds and applied Article 3, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and to that end granted the prosecution's motion to amend the indictment to change the charged statutory provision.

Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court affirmed all of the court below's determinations. It stated that a new loan has no identity with the existing loan in terms of the borrower of record, the loan category, and the principal, and that since it was never used for repayment of principal it is not a rollover refinancing; that the breach of trust is complete when the loan funds reach a state in which they can be used, and accordingly the portion later used for interest payments is not deducted from the loss, and necessary expenses such as loan commissions are also included in the amount of damage. It also rejected the grounds of appeal concerning the amendment of the indictment and the question of parity with the co-defendant.

Distinguishing conditions

• Where the new loan constitutes a rollover refinancing settled only on paper without any actual transfer of funds in order to repay the existing loan debt
• Where, although the loan funds were deposited into the account of the borrower of record, they never reached a state in which the actual borrower or the defendant could use them
• Where the respective loans were made on separate motives and occasions and can hardly be regarded as a series of acts based on a single criminal intent, or where the protected legal interest or the modus operandi of the offenses differs

Record verification notes

Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first check whether there is identity of borrower of record, loan category, and principal between the new loan and the existing loan, whether the loan funds were actually applied to repayment of principal, and whether the respective loans can be tied together as a single criminal intent.

From the official text

Points at issue

[1] 수개의 업무상 배임행위가 포괄일죄에 해당하기 위한 요건 [2] 업무상 배임죄에서 ‘재산상의 손해를 가한 때’의 의미 [3] 업무상 배임행위로 인한 신규 대출금의 일부가 기존 대출금의 이자 또는 신규 대출금의 이자 지급에 사용되었다고 하더라도 이를 업무상 배임의 재산상 손해에서 제외할 것은 아니고, 대출수수료 등과 같이 대출과 관련하여 발생하는 필요비 역시 재산상 손해액에 포함된다고 한 사례

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 모두 기각한다 상고 이후의 구금일수 중 110일씩을 피고인 1, 피고인 2에 대한 각 본형에 산입한다.

Provisions referred to

[1] 형법 제37조, 제355조 제2항, 제356조 [2] 형법 제356조 [3] 형법 제356조