Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Where Co-owners Are Deceived into Creating a Maximum Amount Mortgage over the Entire Co-owned Real Property: Number of Offenses of Fraud and Calculation of the Amount Gained under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Apr. 23, 2015, 2014Do16980 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. 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.
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)·사기·사문서위조·위조사문서행사·공정증서원본불실기재방조
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where co-owners are jointly deceived into creating a single maximum amount mortgage over the entire co-owned real property, may the offenses of fraud against the victims be treated as a single comprehensive offense, so that the entire maximum amount of the claim secured may be taken as the amount gained under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes?
Holding
If the co-owners each exercised the power of disposition over their own co-owned shares, and there are no circumstances making the protected legal interest identical, such as the formation of a single unitary body, an independent offense of fraud is established against each victim, and these offenses stand in a relation of imaginary concurrence. Accordingly, the amounts gained may not be aggregated and charged as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (fraud).
Points at issue, verbatim
다수의 피해자에 대하여 각별로 기망행위를 하여 각각 재산상 이익을 편취한 경우, 범의가 단일하고 범행방법이 동일하더라도 피해자별로 독립한 사기죄가 성립하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where acts of deception are committed separately against a plurality of victims and pecuniary benefits are obtained from each of them, whether an independent offense of fraud is established with respect to each victim notwithstanding that the intent is single and the method of commission is identical (affirmative)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인 1에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 1 is reversed, and the case in this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
각 피해자의 피해법익은 독립한 것이므로 피해자별로 독립한 사기죄가 성립하고
Unofficial English translation
Since the protected legal interest of each victim is independent, an independent offense of fraud is established with respect to each victim, and
Factors
- 범의가 단일하고 범행방법이 동일하더라도 피해자별로 독립한 사기죄가 성립하는지 여부
- 사기죄의 포괄일죄로 볼 수 있는 경우
- 1개의 기망행위에 의하여 다수의 피해자에게서 각각 재산상 이익을 편취한 경우
- 그 가액(이득액)의 산정 방법
Unofficial English translation
• Whether an independent offense of fraud is established with respect to each victim notwithstanding that the intent is single and the method of commission is identical
• The case in which the offenses of fraud may be regarded as a single comprehensive offense
• Where a pecuniary benefit is obtained from each of a plurality of victims by a single act of deception
• The method of calculating the value thereof (the amount of gain)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1993. 6. 22. 선고 93도743 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 93Do743 decided June 22, 1993
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 1993. 6. 22. 선고 93도743 판결(공1993하, 2193), 대법원 2000. 7. 7. 선고 2000도1899 판결(공2000하, 1911) / [1] 대법원 2000. 3. 24. 선고 2000도28 판결(공2000상, 1107) / [2] 대법원 2011. 4. 14. 선고 2011도769 판결(공2011상, 984) / [3] 대법원 2011. 1. 13. 선고 2010도9330 판결(공2011상, 373) / [4] 대법원 1984. 4. 10. 선고 84도119 판결(공1984, 866), 대법원 1996. 3. 22. 선고 96도384 판결, 대법원 2000. 4. 25. 선고 2000도137 판결(공2000상, 1360)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
In a combined relationship falling short of a single unitary body, such as where co-owners have agreed to dispose of the property jointly or share a common business purpose, to what degree must the relationship reach before the protected legal interest may be regarded as identical?
This reading will be checked again if Supreme Court precedent on the method of calculating the amount gained under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, or on the criteria for treating offenses of fraud involving multiple victims as a single comprehensive offense, is changed.
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 matched, and the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Because the original text states the general criteria for counting offenses and calculating the amount gained for each victim, while the disposition is a partial reversal and remand, the primary reading may be classified as focusing on application to the facts, and the independent reading as focusing on the statement of general elements.
피해자별로 독립한 사기죄가 성립하는지 여부(적극) 및 사기죄의 포괄일죄로 볼 수 있는 경우Raw 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 that the protected legal interest was identical because the victims, co-owners sharing a common interest in disposing of the Manu-ri real property as a whole, created a single maximum amount mortgage over the entire real property rather than over each share. It therefore upheld the court of first instance, which recognized the offense of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (fraud) on the basis that, comprehensively, a pecuniary benefit of approximately KRW 700 million, the maximum amount of the claim secured, had been obtained by fraud.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that an independent offense of fraud was established against each victim and that the offenses stood in a relation of imaginary concurrence, pointing to the circumstances in which the victims acquired their co-owned shares, the fact that each exercised the power of disposition over their own co-owned share, and the absence of any circumstances making the protected legal interest identical, such as the formation of a single unitary body. Holding that the court below had misapprehended legal principles with respect to the amount gained and the number of offenses of fraud, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment in its entirety as to Defendant 1, and dismissed the prosecution's final appeal as to the portion acquitting Defendant 2.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the victims form a single unitary body or there are otherwise circumstances making the protected legal interest identical, so that a single comprehensive offense is established
- Where one victim is subjected to several acts of deception, so that the unity and continuity of intent is recognized
- Where the amount gained from each victim alone exceeds the threshold amount under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first check the Records to determine whether the victims acquired their co-owned shares individually and exercised the power of disposition separately, or whether the protected legal interest is bound into one by a joint business, partnership, or similar relationship.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조에서 말하는 ‘이득액’의 의미 [2] 다수의 피해자에 대하여 각별로 기망행위를 하여 각각 재산상 이익을 편취한 경우, 범의가 단일하고 범행방법이 동일하더라도 피해자별로 독립한 사기죄가 성립하는지 여부(적극) 및 사기죄의 포괄일죄로 볼 수 있는 경우 [3] 1개의 기망행위에 의하여 다수의 피해자에게서 각각 재산상 이익을 편취한 경우, 피해자별로 수 개의 사기죄가 성립하는지 여부(적극) 및 그 죄수(=상상적 경합범) [4] 제3자에게서 돈을 융자받거나 물품을 외상으로 공급받을 목적으로 타인을 기망하여 타인 소유의 부동산에 제3자 앞으로 근저당권을 설정케 한 자가 취득하는 재산상 이익의 내용 및 그 가액(이득액)의 산정 방법
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of "the amount of gain" as used in Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes [2] Where acts of deception are committed separately against a plurality of victims and pecuniary benefits are obtained from each of them, whether an independent offense of fraud is established with respect to each victim notwithstanding that the intent is single and the method of commission is identical (affirmative) and the case in which the offenses of fraud may be regarded as a single comprehensive offense [3] Where a pecuniary benefit is obtained from each of a plurality of victims by a single act of deception, whether several offenses of fraud are established with respect to each victim (affirmative) and the number of offenses thereof (= imaginary concurrence) [4] The content of the pecuniary benefit obtained by a person who, for the purpose of borrowing money from a third party or being supplied goods on credit, deceives another person and causes a maximum amount mortgage to be established in favor of the third party over real estate owned by that other person, and the method of calculating the value thereof (the amount of gain)
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
원심판결 중 피고인 1에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 검사의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 1 is reversed, and the case in this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The prosecutor's final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 [2] 형법 제37조, 제347조 [3] 형법 제40조, 제347조 [4] 형법 제347조
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