Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Criteria for calculating the amount of gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes in cases of embezzlement through the unauthorized creation of a maximum amount mortgage over property held in trust under another's name
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, May 9, 2013, 2013Do2857 (judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률 위반(횡령)·사기·횡령
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a maximum amount mortgage is created without authority over property held in trust under another's name and kept in custody, is the amount of gain from embezzlement for the purpose of applying Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes the market value of the real property less the prior-ranking secured debts, the amount of the secured debt newly provided as security, or the maximum amount of the claim?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that, when applying the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the value of the property subject to the embezzlement must be calculated strictly and cautiously in accordance with the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment and the principle of culpability. It held that, in cases of embezzlement by way of creating a maximum amount mortgage, the amount of gain is the amount of the secured debt provided as security, or the maximum amount of the claim. It held that, since the amount of gain in this case was less than 500 million won, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes could not be applied.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
피고인이 근저당권설정등기를 마치는 방법으로 위 각 부동산을 횡령하여 취득한 구체적인 이득액은 위 각 부동산의 시가 상당액에서 위 범행 전에 설정된 피담보채무액을 공제한 잔액이 아니라 위 각 부동산을 담보로 제공한 피담보채무액 내지 그 채권최고액이라고 보아야 하고
Unofficial English translation
the specific amount of gain obtained by the defendant by embezzling each of the said real property through the method of completing registration establishing a maximum amount mortgage must be regarded as the amount of secured debt or the maximum amount of the claim for which each of the said real property was provided as collateral, and not the balance remaining after deducting the amount of secured debt established before the said offense from the amount equivalent to the market value of each of the said real property, and
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
이와 달리 특경가법 위반(횡령)죄를 인정한 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
In a case where the judgment of the court below, which found the defendant guilty of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (embezzlement), is erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles contrary to the foregoing
Factors
- 횡령한 재물의 가액을 엄격하고 신중하게 산정함으로써
- 죄형균형 원칙 및 형벌은 책임에 기초하고 그 책임에 비례하여야 한다는 책임주의 원칙
- 위 각 부동산의 시가 상당액에서 위 범행 전에 설정된 피담보채무액을 공제한 잔액이 아니라
- 위 각 부동산을 담보로 제공한 피담보채무액 내지 그 채권최고액이라고 보아야 하고
Unofficial English translation
• By strictly and carefully calculating the value of the property embezzled,
• the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment and the principle of culpability, under which punishment is founded upon and must be proportionate to responsibility,
• not the balance remaining after deducting the amount of secured debt established before the said offense from the amount equivalent to the market value of each of the said real property, but
• the amount of secured debt or the maximum amount of the claim for which each of the said real property was provided as collateral must be regarded as such, and
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 4. 19. 선고 2005도7288 전원합의체 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do7288 decided April 19, 2007
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2007. 4. 19. 선고 2005도7288 전원합의체 판결(공2007상, 923), 대법원 2009. 6. 11. 선고 2009도2880 판결, 대법원 2012. 8. 30. 선고 2012도6394 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
In embezzlement through the creation of a maximum amount mortgage, which figure should be fixed as the amount of gain — the actual amount of the secured debt or the maximum amount of the claim — and on what basis should one be chosen where the two amounts differ significantly?
This reading is to be re-examined if the standard for the amount of gain under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is amended, or if the Supreme Court renders a judgment fixing the amount of gain in embezzlement through the creation of a maximum amount mortgage as either the amount of the secured debt or the maximum amount of the claim.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, all eight axes matched.
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 of first instance took, as the amount embezzled, the value obtained by deducting prior-ranking secured debts of 220,000,000 won from an amount equivalent to the market value of the real property, including the aggregate market value of the seven parcels of land of 724,379,000 won, and applied Article 3 (1) subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; the court below maintained this holding. The separate counts of embezzlement and fraud were found guilty.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, ruling ex officio (by the court's own authority), held that the amount of gain was the amount of the secured debt newly provided as security, or the maximum amount of the claim (266,000,000 won), and that, being less than 500 million won, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes could not be applied. It held that the court below had misapprehended legal principles in calculating the amount of gain on the basis of market value. The Supreme Court accepted the holding of the court below as to the counts of embezzlement and fraud. However, since a single sentence had been pronounced for concurrent offenses, the judgment of the court below was reversed in its entirety.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the entire property has been misappropriated by a means other than the creation of security, such as selling the property held in custody or transferring ownership thereof
- Where the amount of the secured debt of, or the maximum amount of the claim under, the newly created maximum amount mortgage is itself 500 million won or more, so that the threshold for applying the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is exceeded regardless of the method of calculation
- Where only the simple embezzlement offense under Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, in which value is not a constituent element, is at issue
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it should first be examined whether the aggregate of the amounts provided as security would reach 500 million won or more where maximum amount mortgages are created several times over the same real property, and whether the conduct went beyond the creation of security to the point of disposition.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 횡령액을 기준으로 가중처벌하는 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조를 적용할 때 유의할 사항 [2] 피고인이 피해자 갑으로부터 명의신탁을 받아 보관 중인 부동산에 임의로 근저당권을 설정하였는데, 위 부동산에는 이전에 별도의 근저당권설정등기가 마쳐져 있던 사안에서, 피고인이 부동산을 횡령하여 취득한 이득액은 부동산을 담보로 제공한 피담보채무액 또는 채권최고액이라고 보아야 하는데, 이와 달리 부동산의 시가 상당액을 기초로 이득액을 산정한 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Matters to be noted when applying Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which imposes aggravated punishment based on the amount embezzled [2] In a case where the defendant arbitrarily established a maximum amount mortgage over real property that he was holding under a name trust entrusted to him by the victim A, and where a separate maximum amount mortgage registration had already been made over the said real property, the amount of gain obtained by the defendant through embezzlement of the real property must be regarded as the amount of secured debt or the maximum amount of the claim for which the real property was provided as collateral, and the judgment of the court below, which calculated the amount of gain on the basis of the amount equivalent to the market value of the real property contrary to the foregoing, is erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles
Summary of the holding
[1] 형법 제355조 제1항의 횡령죄는 타인의 재물을 보관하는 자가 재물을 횡령하거나 반환을 거부함으로써 성립하고 재물의 가액이 얼마인지는 문제되지 아니하는 데 비하여, 횡령으로 인한 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반죄에 있어서는 횡령한 재물의 가액이 5억 원 이상 또는 50억 원 이상이라는 것이 범죄구성요건의 일부로 되어 있고 그 가액에 따라 그 죄에 대한 형벌도 가중되어 있으므로, 이를 적용함에 있어서는 횡령한 재물의 가액을 엄격하고 신중하게 산정함으로써 범죄와 형벌 사이에 적정한 균형이 이루어져야 한다는 죄형균형 원칙 및 형벌은 책임에 기초하고 그 책임에 비례하여야 한다는 책임주의 원칙이 훼손되지 않도록 유의하여야 한다. [2] 피고인이 피해자 갑으로부터 명의신탁을 받아 보관 중인 토지 9필지와 건물 1채에 갑의 승낙 없이 임의로 채권최고액 266,000,000원의 근저당권을 설정하였는데, 당시 위 각 부동산 중 토지 7필지의 시가는 합계 724,379,000원, 나머지 2필지와 건물 1채의 시가는 미상인 반면 위 각 부동산에는 그 이전에 채권최고액 434,000,000원의 근저당권설정등기가 마쳐져 있고, 이에 대하여 갑은 220,000,000원의 피담보채무를 부담하고 있는 사안에서, 피고인이 근저당권설정등기를 마치는 방법으로 위 각 부동산을 횡령하여 취득한 구체적인 이득액은 위 각 부동산의 시가 상당액에서 위 범행 전에 설정된 피담보채무액을 공제한 잔액이 아니라 위 각 부동산을 담보로 제공한 피담보채무액 내지 그 채권최고액이라고 보아야 하고, 이 경우 피고인의 이득액은 5억 원 미만이므로 구 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(2012. 2. 10. 법률 제11304호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘특경가법’이라 한다) 제3조 제1항을 적용할 수 없는데도, 이와 달리 특경가법 위반(횡령)죄를 인정한 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제355조 제1항, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 [2] 형법 제355조 제1항, 구 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(2012. 2. 10. 법률 제11304호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1항 제2호
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