Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Requirements for Applying the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes to Embezzlement in the Course of Business Where There Are Multiple Victims, and Requirements for a Beneficiary of Breach of Trust to Be Liable as a Co-Principal
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Feb. 24, 2011, 2010Do13801 (judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)·특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(수재등)·특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)(일부인정된죄명:업무상배임)·특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(증재등)·상호저축은행법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
To punish acts of embezzling funds withdrawn from the accounts of several companies and individuals comprehensively as one offense of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (embezzlement), must the victims and the amount of damage suffered by each victim be specified?
Holding
Where there are multiple victims, the protected legal interest is not unitary, making it difficult to constitute a single comprehensive offense, and the amount of gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is not the sum of several offenses subject to concurrent punishment. Accordingly, in principle, the victim and the amount of damage for each victim must be specified, and the beneficiary of an act of breach of trust becomes a joint principal offender only where he or she actively participated in the act of breach of trust.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
횡령행위를 포괄하여 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(횡령)죄로 의율하려면 원칙적으로 피해자 및 피해자별 피해액에 관한 공소사실의 특정이 필요하다.
Unofficial English translation
In order to punish acts of embezzlement comprehensively as the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), in principle, it is necessary to specify the victims and the amount of damage to each victim in the facts charged in the indictment.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인 1에 대한 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in the part finding Defendant 1 guilty, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
원칙적으로 피해자 및 피해자별 피해액에 관한 공소사실의 특정이 필요하다.
Unofficial English translation
in principle, it is necessary to specify the victims and the amount of damage to each victim in the facts charged in the indictment.
Factors
- 피해법익이 단일하고, 범죄의 태양이 동일하며, 단일 범의의 발현에 기인하는 일련의 행위
- 피해자가 수인인 경우는 피해법익이 단일하다고 할 수 없으므로 포괄일죄의 성립을 인정하기 어렵고
- 경합범으로 처벌될 수죄의 이득액을 합한 금액을 말한다고 볼 수는 없으므로
- 소극적으로 배임행위에 편승하여 이익을 취득한 것만으로는 부족하고
- 배임행위의 전 과정에 관여하는 등으로 배임행위에 적극 가담할 것이 필요하다
Unofficial English translation
• the legal interest harmed is single, the pattern of the crime is identical, and it is a series of acts arising from the manifestation of a single criminal intent
• where there are multiple victims, the legal interest harmed cannot be said to be single, and thus it is difficult to recognize the formation of a single comprehensive offense, and
• it cannot be regarded as referring to the amount obtained by combining the gains from the offenses that may be punished as concurrent offenses, and therefore
• passively taking advantage of an act of breach of trust and obtaining profit alone is insufficient, and
• it is necessary to have actively participated in the act of breach of trust, such as by being involved in the entire process of the act of breach of trust
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1989. 6. 13. 선고 89도582 판결(공1989, 1103), 대법원 2005. 9. 28. 선고 2005도3929 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 89Do582 decided June 13, 1989 (Gong 1989, 1103), Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3929 decided September 28, 2005
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1989. 6. 13. 선고 89도582 판결(공1989, 1103), 대법원 2005. 9. 28. 선고 2005도3929 판결(공2005하, 1731), 대법원 2009. 2. 12. 선고 2006도6994 판결, 대법원 2010. 4. 29. 선고 2010도2810 판결 / [2] 대법원 2003. 10. 30. 선고 2003도4382 판결(공2003하, 2384), 대법원 2007. 4. 12. 선고 2007도1033 판결 / [3] 대법원 2007. 2. 23. 선고 2005도10233 판결, 대법원 2008. 7. 10. 선고 2008도3357 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where specification of the victim and the amount of damage for each victim is in principle required, what exceptional circumstances make such specification unnecessary?
This reading should be checked again if precedents on the method of calculating the amount of gain under Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes or on the unitariness of the protected legal interest in a single comprehensive offense change.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading by another AI lineage (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the initial reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on the 8th axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where specification of the victim and the amount of damage for each victim is in principle required, what exceptional circumstances make such specification unnecessary?” vs Independent “Besides a case of instigating an act of breach of trust or involvement in the entire process, what acts of involvement constitute the active participation required to form joint principal offender liability?”
The initial reading asks about the exceptions in which specification by victim is unnecessary, whereas the independent reading asks about the scope of the acts of involvement that constitute the active participation required to form joint principal offender liability for breach of trust.
횡령행위를 포괄하여 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(횡령)죄로 의율하려면 원칙적으로 피해자 및 피해자별 피해액에 관한 공소사실의 특정이 필요하다.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 trial court accepted, as it stood, the charged facts of embezzlement in 83 instances totaling KRW 3,636,240,000, in which no victim other than Non-indicted 1 Co., Ltd. was specified, and found Defendant 1 guilty of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (embezzlement); the court below also affirmed this. The court below recognized Defendant 1 as a joint principal offender of breach of trust in the course of business, found the parts concerning the offering and acceptance of bribes not guilty, and, holding that some of the charged facts against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (breach of trust) stood in imaginary concurrence with the final judgment for violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, rendered a judgment terminating prosecution on statutory grounds (myeonso).
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that, although the amounts of embezzlement included amounts withdrawn from accounts in the names of several companies and individuals, the failure to require the prosecution to clarify the victims and the amount of damage for each victim amounted to a misunderstanding of the legal principle concerning single comprehensive offenses and the specification of the charged facts, and to failure to exhaust deliberations. Because a single sentence had been imposed for this portion together with the remaining guilty portions as offenses in concurrence, the Supreme Court reversed the entire guilty portion as to Defendant 1. Holding that the recognition of joint principal offender liability for breach of trust in the course of business, the not guilty findings on the offering and acceptance of bribes, and the determination of a judgment terminating prosecution on statutory grounds (myeonso) were proper, it dismissed the remaining final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where all of the withdrawn funds are recognized as owned by one and the same company in substance, so that the victim is single
- Where the defendant is found to be the actual borrower of funds lent in another's name and the owner of those funds, so that the very establishment of the embezzlement offense is at issue
- Where the beneficiary of the breach of trust merely took passive advantage of it, knowing of the act of breach of trust, to obtain a profit, without any active participation such as instigation or involvement in the entire process
Record verification notes
One should first check whether, when the damage is divided by victim, each amount of gain reaches the threshold for application of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and whether the amount of embezzlement for each item was not used for the benefit of the relevant victim.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 수개의 업무상횡령 행위를 포괄하여 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(횡령)죄로 의율하기 위해서는 피해자 및 피해자별 피해액에 관한 공소사실의 특정이 필요한지 여부(적극) [2] 업무상배임죄로 이익을 얻는 수익자 또는 그와 밀접한 관련이 있는 제3자를 배임의 실행행위자와 공동정범으로 인정하기 위한 요건 [3] 동일인 한도초과 대출로 인하여 ‘상호저축은행법 위반죄’와 ‘업무상배임죄’가 성립하는 경우 두 죄의 죄수 관계(=상상적 경합) 및 그 중 1죄에 대한 확정판결의 기판력이 다른 죄에 대하여도 미치는지 여부(적극) [4] 판결이 확정된 동일인 한도초과 대출로 인한 구 상호저축은행법 위반의 범죄사실과 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(배임)의 공소사실이 상상적 경합관계에 있다고 보아, 위 공소사실에 대하여 면소를 선고한 원심판결을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether it is necessary to specify the victims and the amount of damage to each victim in the facts charged in the indictment in order to punish several acts of embezzlement in the course of business comprehensively as the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (affirmative) [2] Requirements for recognizing a beneficiary who obtains profit from the crime of occupational breach of trust, or a third party who is closely related to such beneficiary, as a joint principal offender with the person who committed the act of breach of trust [3] The relationship between the crime of violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act and the crime of occupational breach of trust (= imaginary concurrence) where both are constituted by a loan exceeding the lending limit to a single person, and whether the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment on one of the two crimes extends to the other crime as well (affirmative) [4] A case in which the judgment of the court below, which pronounced a judgment terminating prosecution on statutory grounds (myeonso) as to the facts charged in the indictment for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Breach of Trust) and the facts of the crime of violation of the former Mutual Savings Banks Act arising from a loan exceeding the lending limit to a single person, as to which judgment had become final and conclusive, on the ground that they stand in a relation of imaginary concurrence, was affirmed
Summary of the holding
[1] 수개의 업무상횡령 행위라 하더라도 피해법익이 단일하고, 범죄의 태양이 동일하며, 단일 범의의 발현에 기인하는 일련의 행위로 인정되는 경우는 포괄하여 1개의 범죄라고 할 것이지만, 피해자가 수인인 경우는 피해법익이 단일하다고 할 수 없으므로 포괄일죄의 성립을 인정하기 어렵고, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항에서 정한 이득액은 단순일죄의 이득액이나 포괄일죄의 이득액 합산액을 의미하는 것이지 경합범으로 처벌될 수죄의 이득액을 합한 금액을 말한다고 볼 수는 없으므로, 횡령행위를 포괄하여 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(횡령)죄로 의율하려면 원칙적으로 피해자 및 피해자별 피해액에 관한 공소사실의 특정이 필요하다. [2] 업무상배임죄로 이익을 얻는 수익자 또는 그와 밀접한 관련이 있는 제3자를 배임의 실행행위자와 공동정범으로 인정하기 위해서는 실행행위자의 행위가 피해자 본인에 대한 배임행위에 해당한다는 것을 알면서도 소극적으로 배임행위에 편승하여 이익을 취득한 것만으로는 부족하고, 실행행위자의 배임행위를 교사하거나 또는 배임행위의 전 과정에 관여하는 등으로 배임행위에 적극 가담할 것이 필요하다. [3] 동일인 한도초과 대출로 상호저축은행에 손해를 가하여 상호저축은행법 위반죄와 업무상배임죄가 모두 성립한 경우, 두 죄는 형법 제40조에서 정한 상상적 경합관계에 있고, 형법 제40조의 상상적 경합관계의 경우에는 그 중 1죄에 대한 확정판결의 기판력은 다른 죄에 대하여도 미친다. [4] 판결이 확정된 동일인 한도초과 대출로 인한 구 상호저축은행법(2010. 3. 22. 법률 제10175호로 개정되기 전의 것) 위반의 범죄사실과 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(배임)의 공소사실이 상상적 경합관계에 있다고 보아, 위 공소사실에 대하여 면소를 선고한 원심판결을 수긍한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인 1에 대한 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다. 피고인 2, 피고인 3 및 검사의 상고를 각 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed in the part finding Defendant 1 guilty, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court. The appeals of Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and the prosecutor are each dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제37조, 제355조 제1항, 제356조, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항, 형사소송법 제254조 제4항 [2] 형법 제30조, 제355조 제2항, 제356조 [3] 형법 제40조, 제355조 제2항, 제356조, 상호저축은행법 제12조 제1항, 제39조 제4항 제6호 [4] 형법 제40조, 제355조 제2항, 제356조, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항, 구 상호저축은행법(2010. 3. 22. 법률 제10175호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제12조 제1항, 제39조 제3항 제4호의2(현행 제39조 제4항 제6호 참조), 형사소송법 제326조 제1호
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