Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Number of Offenses in Letter of Credit Fraud Involving Sham Transactions and Falsified Accounting, Calculation of the Amount of Gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and the Test for Loan Agreements under the Former Foreign Exchange Transactions Act
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, May 27, 2010, 2007Do10056 (judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)·외국환거래법위반·주식회사의외부감사에관한법률위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is the fraud that induced the opening of letters of credit through sham import and export transactions and falsified accounting a single comprehensive offense; are the letter of credit payments that were settled excluded from the amount of gain; and does the borrowing of funds in the guise of letter of credit transactions constitute a loan of money under the former Foreign Exchange Transactions Act?
Holding
Fraud by sham transactions and fraud by falsified accounting differ in their method of offense, so even where the victim is the same they do not constitute a single comprehensive offense, and the amount of gain is the aggregate sum of the letter of credit amounts for which payment guarantees were obtained, without deducting payments settled thereafter. Whether there is a loan of money is determined by the substance rather than the form of the contract; accordingly, even where the transaction is in the form of a letter of credit transaction, if in substance it involves borrowing from and repayment to a foreign company, it falls within that provision.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 편취범행으로 취득한 재산상 이익의 가액으로 볼 수 있는 신용장 대금의 합계액이 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항이 정한 이득액이 되는 것이지, 갑 회사가 이후 신용장 대금을 결제하였다고 하여 그 결제한 대금을 공제하여 이득액을 산정해야 하는 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
The aggregate amount of the letter of credit proceeds, which can be regarded as the value of the pecuniary benefit obtained by the said acts of fraud by deception, constitutes the amount of gain as provided in Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and even though Company A subsequently settled the letter of credit proceeds, the amount of gain need not be calculated by deducting the settled proceeds.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유죄 부분 및 외국환거래법 위반의 점에 대한 무죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below and the not guilty portion with respect to the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act are reversed, and the case as to this portion is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
계약의 형식이 아닌 계약의 내용으로 판단하여야 할 것인바
Unofficial English translation
determination must be made by the content of the contract and not by the form of the contract;
Factors
- 신용장 개설은행별로 각각 포괄하여 1죄가 성립하고
- 범행 방법이 동일하지 않아 그 피해자가 동일하더라도 포괄일죄가 성립한다고 할 수 없다
- 신용장 대금의 합계액이 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항이 정한 이득액이 되는 것
- 계약의 형식이 아닌 계약의 내용으로 판단하여야
- 그 계약 내용이 일방이 금전을 대여하고 타방이 이를 반환하기로 하는 것이라면
Unofficial English translation
• a single comprehensive offense is established for each letter of credit opening bank taken as a whole, and
• even where the victims are identical, a single comprehensive offense cannot be regarded as established if the methods of the offense are not identical
• the aggregate amount of the letter of credit proceeds constitutes the amount of gain as provided in Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes
• determination must be made by the content of the contract and not by the form of the contract
• if the content of that contract is such that one party lends money and the other party agrees to return it,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2006. 5. 26. 선고 2006도1614 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1614 decided May 26, 2006
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2002. 7. 12. 선고 2002도2029 판결(공2002하, 2000), 대법원 2006. 2. 23. 선고 2005도8645 판결(공2006상, 537) / [2] 대법원 2006. 5. 26. 선고 2006도1614 판결(공2006하, 1224), 대법원 2006. 11. 24. 선고 2005도5567 판결(공2007상, 92)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a foreign financial institution or a purchasing bank for export letters of credit is involved in addition to the opening bank, who is to be regarded as the party to the loan of money, and is the same holding maintained under Article 18 (1) of the current Foreign Exchange Transactions Act?
If a subsequent decision is handed down concerning the current provision corresponding to Article 18 (2) 2 of the former Foreign Exchange Transactions Act or the concept of the amount of gain under Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, this reading will be examined again.
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 primary reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, while on the 8th axis (Open question and revisit condition) the readings diverged.
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a foreign financial institution or a purchasing bank for export letters of credit is involved in addition to the opening bank, who is to be regarded as the party to the loan of money, and is the same holding maintained under Article 18 (1) of the current Foreign Exchange Transactions Act?” vs Independent “Where sham transactions and falsified accounting are used simultaneously in the opening of a single letter of credit, how is the number-of-offenses relationship between the two offenses of fraud to be determined?”
The primary reading asks who the parties to the loan are where multiple financial institutions are involved and whether the test is maintained under current law, while the independent reading asks about the number-of-offenses relationship where sham transactions and falsified accounting are used simultaneously.
그 편취범행으로 취득한 재산상 이익의 가액으로 볼 수 있는 신용장 대금의 합계액이 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항이 정한 이득액이 되는 것이지, 갑 회사가 이후 신용장 대금을 결제하였다고 하여 그 결제한 대금을 공제하여 이득액을 산정해야 하는 것은 아니다.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 found fraud by sham transactions and falsified accounting guilty, recognizing a single comprehensive offense for each opening bank and the aggregate sum of the letter of credit amounts as the amount of gain, and held that Korea Development Bank did not open the letters of credit having been deceived by the financial statements for fiscal year 2003 and the like. As to the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, viewing the matter as Non-indicted Co. having borrowed funds from and repaid domestic opening banks, the court below held not guilty on the ground that it was not a transaction under a loan of money between a resident and a non-resident.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court affirmed the court below's holding on the causation of the fraud, the number of offenses, and the amount of gain, as well as its holding on the part concerning Korea Development Bank. However, on the basis that the export letter of credit amounts were provided at the burden of the foreign company, that the sums denominated as interest were the consideration for the loan of money, and that the final settlement was effected between Non-indicted Co. and the foreign company, the Supreme Court found that a loan relationship existed and reversed the not guilty holding on the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act; and because the guilty portions must be sentenced to a single punishment as a concurrence of offenses, it reversed those portions as well.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case where the method of deception is identical and the intent is unitary, so that repeated deceptions of the same victim are evaluated as one method of offense
- A case where the substantive burden of funds and the final settlement of the letter of credit transactions took place between a domestic financial institution and a resident, so that the transaction cannot be regarded as borrowing from a non-resident
- A case where the opening bank knew that the purpose was the provision of funds without any actual transaction, or where the false financial statements had no effect on the decision to open the letter of credit, so that the causation between the deception and the disposition is denied
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, first confirm in the Records whether the opening bank already knew of the sham nature of the transaction or of the deterioration of the financial situation, and whether the sums denominated as interest and the structure for the recovery of funds actually demonstrate a loan relationship with the foreign company.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] ‘수출입거래를 가장한 신용장 개설 방법에 의한 사기죄’와 ‘분식회계에 의한 재무제표 등을 이용한 신용장 개설 방법에 의한 사기죄’의 죄수 관계 [2] 사기행위로 은행들이 수회에 걸쳐 신용장을 개설하게 하여 각 신용장 대금 상당액의 지급보증을 받은 경우, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항에서 정한 ‘이득액’의 산정 방법 [3] 구 외국환거래법 제18조 제2항 제2호에서 거주자와 비거주자 사이에 ‘금전의 대차계약’이 성립하였는지 여부의 판단 기준
Unofficial English translation
[1] The relationship between the offense of fraud committed by means of opening letters of credit disguised as export-import transactions and the offense of fraud committed by means of opening letters of credit using financial statements, etc. prepared through window dressing [2] The method of calculating the 'amount of gain' provided in Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes where, by acts of fraud, banks were induced to open letters of credit on several occasions and payment guarantees in the amount of the respective letter of credit proceeds were obtained [3] The criteria for determining whether a 'loan agreement for money' was formed between a resident and a non-resident under Article 18 (2) 2 of the former Foreign Exchange Transactions Act
Summary of the holding
[1] 석유를 수입하는 것처럼 가장하여 신용장 개설은행들로 하여금 신용장을 개설하게 하고 신용장 대금 상당액의 지급을 보증하게 함으로써 동액 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득한 행위는 피해자들인 신용장 개설은행별로 각각 포괄하여 1죄가 성립하고, 분식회계에 의한 재무제표 및 감사보고서 등으로 은행으로 하여금 신용장을 개설하게 하여 신용장 대금 상당액의 지급을 보증하게 함으로써 동액 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득한 행위도 포괄하여 1죄가 성립한다고 할 것이나, 위와 같이 ‘가장거래에 의한 사기죄’와 ‘분식회계에 의한 사기죄’는 범행 방법이 동일하지 않아 그 피해자가 동일하더라도 포괄일죄가 성립한다고 할 수 없다. [2] 갑 회사의 임원인 피고인들의 사기행위로 신용장 개설은행들이 수회에 걸쳐 신용장을 개설하여 갑 회사가 각 신용장 대금 상당액의 지급보증을 받음으로써 재산상 이익을 취득하였다면, 그 편취범행으로 취득한 재산상 이익의 가액으로 볼 수 있는 신용장 대금의 합계액이 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항이 정한 이득액이 되는 것이지, 갑 회사가 이후 신용장 대금을 결제하였다고 하여 그 결제한 대금을 공제하여 이득액을 산정해야 하는 것은 아니다. [3] 구 외국환거래법(2008. 2. 29. 법률 제8863호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제18조 제2항 제2호에서 거주자와 비거주자 사이에 ‘금전의 대차계약’이 성립하였는지 여부는 계약의 형식이 아닌 계약의 내용으로 판단하여야 할 것인바, 거주자와 비거주자가 대차계약이 아닌 다른 계약의 형식을 빌렸다 하더라도 그 계약 내용이 일방이 금전을 대여하고 타방이 이를 반환하기로 하는 것이라면 이는 위 조항의 ‘금전의 대차계약’에 해당한다.
Order
원심판결 중 유죄 부분 및 외국환거래법 위반의 점에 대한 무죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다. 검사의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below and the not guilty portion with respect to the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act are reversed, and the case as to this portion is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The prosecutor's remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제37조, 제347조 [2] 형법 제347조, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 [3] 구 외국환거래법(2008. 2. 29. 법률 제8863호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제18조 제2항 제2호(현행 제18조 제1항 참조), 제27조 제1항 제10호(현행 제32조 제1항 제3호 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