Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Requirements for a Separate Act of Disposition Establishing the Offense of Fraud as to the Interest Portion of a Loan, and Whether Fraud Against Married Victims Constitutes a Single Comprehensive Offense
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Apr. 14, 2011, 2011Do769 (judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)·사기
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a person obtains by deception a loan bearing agreed interest and does not pay the interest, does the offense of fraud extend to the interest portion as well, and may the offenses of fraud against each victim be treated as a single comprehensive offense merely because the victims are married to each other?
Holding
For the offense of fraud to be established as to the interest portion, there must be a separate act of disposition concerning the interest portion arising from the act of deception; the interest agreement and non-payment alone are insufficient. Fraud against multiple victims constitutes one offense for each victim, and the Court held that the mere fact that the victims are married does not make their protected legal interests identical, so that no single comprehensive offense is formed.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위 이자 부분에 대해서도 사기죄가 성립하기 위하여는 피고인의 기망행위로 인해 이자 부분에 관한 별도의 처분행위가 있어야 하는데, 이에 대하여 피해자들의 처분행위가 있었다고 단정할 자료가 없는데도, 피고인의 기망행위와 위 이자 발생 사이에 인과관계를 인정하여 유죄를 인정한 원심판단에 심리미진이나 채증법칙 위반 또는 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 한 사례.
Unofficial English translation
In order for the offense of fraud to be established even with respect to the interest portion, there must be a separate act of disposition with respect to the interest portion as a result of the defendant's act of deception, but a case in which it was held that the judgment of the court below, which found the defendant guilty by recognizing causation between the defendant's act of deception and the accrual of the above interest, was in violation of the law due to failure to exhaust deliberations, or violation of the rules of evidence, or misapprehension of legal principles, even though there were no materials to conclude that the victims engaged in an act of disposition.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed with respect to the guilty part, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
주관적으로 피기망자가 처분의사 즉 처분 결과를 인식하고 객관적으로는 이러한 의사에 지배된 행위가 있을 것을 요한다.
Unofficial English translation
It requires that, subjectively, the deceived person have the intent to dispose, that is, recognition of the result of disposition, and that, objectively, there be an act dominated by such intent.
Factors
- 피기망자가 처분의사 즉 처분 결과를 인식하고
- 이자 부분에 관한 별도의 처분행위가 있어야 하는데
- 피해자별로 1개씩의 죄가 성립하는 것으로 보아야 한다
- 피해자들이 하나의 동업체를 구성하는 등으로 피해 법익이 동일하다고 볼 수 있는 사정이 있는 경우
- 위 피해자들이 부부라는 사정만으로
Unofficial English translation
• the deceived person has the intent to dispose, that is, recognizes the result of disposition, and
• there must be a separate act of disposition with respect to the interest portion, but
• one offense must be regarded as being established for each victim
• where there are circumstances under which the infringed legal interests may be regarded as identical, such as the victims constituting a single entity
• solely by reason of the fact that the above victims are spouses
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1987. 10. 26. 선고 87도1042 판결(공1987, 1829)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 87Do1042 decided October 26, 1987 (Gong 1987, 1829)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1987. 10. 26. 선고 87도1042 판결(공1987, 1829), 대법원 1999. 7. 9. 선고 99도1326 판결(공1999하, 1681), 대법원 2001. 4. 27. 선고 99도484 판결(공2001상, 1305), 대법원 2007. 3. 30. 선고 2005도5972 판결 / [3] 대법원 1997. 6. 27. 선고 97도508 판결(공1997하, 2424), 대법원 2003. 12. 26. 선고 2003도6288 판결(공2004상, 321), 대법원 2010. 4. 29. 선고 2010도2810 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Apart from married persons, what kind of relationship or form of property management would be required for the protected legal interests of multiple victims to be regarded as identical?
If precedents on the interpretation of the act of disposition under Article 347 of the Criminal Act or on the method of calculating the amount of gain under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes change, we will re-examine this reading.
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 family (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 eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Apart from married persons, what kind of relationship or form of property management would be required for the protected legal interests of multiple victims to be regarded as identical?” vs Independent “Upon the fact-finding after remand, will a separate act of disposition as to the interest, or the identity of the protected legal interests of the married victims, be confirmed?”
The initial reading asks what general relationship or form of property management would warrant recognizing the identity of the protected legal interests, while the independent reading asks whether, after remand, the act of disposition in this Case and the identity of the protected legal interests will be confirmed.
위 이자 부분에 대해서도 사기죄가 성립하기 위하여는 피고인의 기망행위로 인해 이자 부분에 관한 별도의 처분행위가 있어야 하는데, 이에 대하여 피해자들의 처분행위가 있었다고 단정할 자료가 없는데도, 피고인의 기망행위와 위 이자 발생 사이에 인과관계를 인정하여 유죄를 인정한 원심판단에 심리미진이나 채증법칙 위반 또는 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 한 사례.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 (Busan High Court, Case No. 2010No646) granted the prosecution's amendment of the indictment and recognized the intent to obtain by fraud, and found that the act of deception bore causation to the acquisition tax and registration tax, etc. paid by the victims and to the interest portion on the 400 million won loan, and accordingly found the defendant guilty. It also treated each offense of fraud against Non-indicted 2 and Non-indicted 3 comprehensively as a single offense and applied the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court accepted the determinations of the court below regarding the grant of the amendment of the indictment, the intent to obtain by fraud, and the part concerning the causing of a third party to acquire property. However, it found that the fact-finding was insufficient as to whether there had been a separate act of disposition following the deception in relation to the outlays such as acquisition tax and the interest portion, and held ex officio that a single comprehensive offense cannot be recognized merely because the victims are married. Because the part supported by reasons and the remaining part had been adjudicated by a single sentence, it reversed and remanded the entire guilty portion.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the record confirms that the victims separately disposed of their property in reliance on the deception with respect to the interest portion as well
- Where there are circumstances, such as multiple victims constituting a single business entity, warranting the view that their protected legal interests are identical
- Where it is confirmed that the outlays made by the victim side were made not in consequence of the defendant's obtaining by fraud but in order to secure collateral for the victims' own investment funds
Record verification notes
Before including interest or incidental expenses in the amount obtained by fraud, or grouping multiple victims together to calculate the amount of gain under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, one must first confirm whether there was a separate act of disposition following the deception for each sum of money and whether the victims' protected legal interests are in fact identical.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 사기죄의 구성요건 중 ‘처분행위’의 의의와 요건 [2] 피고인이 피해자들을 기망하여 이자 지급 약정하에 대여금을 교부받았으나 이자를 지급하지 않은 사안에서, 위 이자 부분에 대하여 피해자들의 별도의 처분행위가 있었다고 단정할 자료가 없는데도 사기죄를 인정한 원심판단에 심리미진이나 채증법칙 위반 또는 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 한 사례 [3] 수인의 피해자에 대하여 단일한 범의하에 동일한 방법으로 각 피해자별로 기망행위를 한 경우, 사기죄의 죄수 및 포괄일죄로 볼 수 있는 경우 [4] 사기죄 피해자들의 피해 법익이 동일하다고 볼 근거가 없는데도, 위 피해자들이 부부라는 사정만으로 이들에 대한 각 사기 행위가 포괄하여 일죄에 해당한다고 보아 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률을 적용한 원심판결에 죄수에 관한 심리미진 또는 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning and requirements of an 'act of disposition,' one of the constituent elements of the offense of fraud [2] In a case where the defendant, deceiving the victims, received the loaned money under an agreement to pay interest but did not pay the interest, a case in which it was held that the judgment of the court below, which found the offense of fraud established with respect to the interest portion, was in violation of the law due to failure to exhaust deliberations, or violation of the rules of evidence, or misapprehension of legal principles, even though there were no materials to conclude that the victims engaged in a separate act of disposition with respect to the interest portion [3] Where an act of deception is committed against each of a plurality of victims under a single criminal intent and by the same method, the number of offenses of fraud and cases that may be regarded as a single comprehensive offense [4] In a case where there is no basis to regard the legal interests infringed by the victims of the offense of fraud as identical, a case in which it was held that the judgment of the court below, which applied the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes by treating each act of fraud against those victims as constituting a single comprehensive offense solely by reason of the fact that those victims were spouses, was in violation of the law due to failure to exhaust deliberations or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the number of offenses
Summary of the holding
[1] 사기죄는 타인을 기망하여 착오에 빠뜨리고 처분행위를 유발하여 재물, 재산상의 이득을 얻음으로써 성립하는 것이므로, 여기서 ‘처분행위’라고 하는 것은 재산적 처분행위로서 주관적으로 피기망자가 처분의사 즉 처분 결과를 인식하고 객관적으로는 이러한 의사에 지배된 행위가 있을 것을 요한다. [2] 피고인이 피해자들을 기망하여 투자금 명목의 돈을 편취하는 과정에서 이자 지급 약정하에 대여금을 교부받았으나 이자를 지급하지 않은 사안에서, 위 이자 부분에 대해서도 사기죄가 성립하기 위하여는 피고인의 기망행위로 인해 이자 부분에 관한 별도의 처분행위가 있어야 하는데, 이에 대하여 피해자들의 처분행위가 있었다고 단정할 자료가 없는데도, 피고인의 기망행위와 위 이자 발생 사이에 인과관계를 인정하여 유죄를 인정한 원심판단에 심리미진이나 채증법칙 위반 또는 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 한 사례. [3] 사기죄에서 수인의 피해자에 대하여 각 피해자별로 기망행위를 하여 각각 재물을 편취한 경우에 그 범의가 단일하고 범행방법이 동일하다고 하더라도 포괄일죄가 성립하는 것이 아니라 피해자별로 1개씩의 죄가 성립하는 것으로 보아야 한다. 다만 피해자들이 하나의 동업체를 구성하는 등으로 피해 법익이 동일하다고 볼 수 있는 사정이 있는 경우에는 피해자가 복수이더라도 이들에 대한 사기죄를 포괄하여 일죄로 볼 수도 있다. [4] 사기죄 피해자들의 피해 법익이 동일하다고 볼 근거가 없는데도, 위 피해자들이 부부라는 사정만으로 이들에 대한 각 사기 행위가 포괄하여 일죄에 해당한다고 보아 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률을 적용한 원심판결에 죄수에 관한 심리미진 또는 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed with respect to the guilty part, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제347조 [2] 형법 제17조, 제347조, 형사소송법 제308조 [3] 형법 제37조, 제347조 [4] 형법 제37조, 제347조 제1항, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항
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