Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Advertising packs as a cloak for fictitious deposit-taking
Supreme Court, July 9, 2020, 2018Do5519 (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: 유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반(예비적 죄명: 유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반방조)·사기(예비적 죄명: 사기방조)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where money is received as payment for advertising packs and returns exceeding that amount are promised, may this be treated as fictitious deposit-taking prohibited by Article 3 and Article 2(i) of the Act on the Regulation of Fictitious Deposit-Taking Acts, and does Korean criminal law apply when the operators are abroad but the agreements and the receipt of the funds occur in Korea?
Holding
Yes, but only where the product trade is a cloak. Under Article 3 and Article 2(i) of the Act on the Regulation of Fictitious Deposit-Taking Acts, money received through a trade in goods is not itself capital contribution money, and only where the trade is feigned and the transaction is in substance one for money may it be treated as the prohibited act. Korean criminal law applied to the unnamed operators because the fictitious deposit agreements and the receipt of the corresponding funds took place in Korea, and the 'shift' clause, which merely deferred payment of the promised returns, made no difference.
Points at issue, verbatim
상품 거래가 매개된 자금을 받는 행위를 같은 법 제3조, 제2조 제1호에서 금지하는 유사수신행위로 볼 수 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
cases in which the act of receiving funds where a transaction in goods is intermediated may be regarded as a similar receiving business operation prohibited under Article 3 and Article 2, subparagraph 1 of the same Act
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유사수신행위의 규제에 관한 법률 위반 및 유사수신행위의 규제에 관한 법률 위반 방조 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Business Operations that Receive Money from Many Persons, etc. and aiding and abetting a violation of the same Act is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
실질적으로 상품의 거래가 매개된 자금을 받는 행위는 출자금을 받는 행위라고 보기 어렵고 그것이 상품의 거래를 가장하거나 빙자한 것일 뿐 사실상 금전의 거래라고 볼 수 있는 경우에 한하여 유사수신행위법이 금지하는 유사수신행위로 볼 수 있다
Unofficial English translation
an act of receiving funds where a transaction in goods is intermediated in substance is difficult to regard as an act of receiving capital contributions, and only in cases where it is merely disguised or under the pretext of a transaction in goods and may in fact be regarded as a transaction in money may it be regarded as a similar receiving business operation prohibited under the Act on the Regulation of Business Operations that Receive Money from Many Persons, etc.
Factors
- 유사수신행위를 금지하는 유사수신행위의 규제에 관한 법률의 입법 취지
- 상품 거래가 매개된 자금을 받는 행위를 같은 법 제3조, 제2조 제1호에서 금지하는 유사수신행위로 볼 수 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• The legislative purpose of the Act on the Regulation of Business Operations that Receive Money from Many Persons, etc. prohibiting similar receiving business operations
• cases in which the act of receiving funds where a transaction in goods is intermediated may be regarded as a similar receiving business operation prohibited under Article 3 and Article 2, subparagraph 1 of the same Act
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 10. 25. 선고 2007도6241 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6241 decided October 25, 2007
Decisions referred to
대법원 2007. 1. 25. 선고 2006도7470 판결(공2007상, 401), 대법원 2007. 10. 25. 선고 2007도6241 판결, 대법원 2016. 9. 8. 선고 2015도14373 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the promised returns are withheld for a long period rather than only deferred, does the promise of returns still fall within Article 2(i) as a fictitious deposit agreement?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Central District Court, which must hold the fact-finding the Supreme Court said was missing, will show how the cloak test works on this file. A later decision narrowing or extending when a product trade counts as a money transaction, or any amendment to Article 2(i) of the Act on the Regulation of Fictitious Deposit-Taking Acts, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the promised returns are withheld for a long period rather than only deferred, does the promise of returns still fall within Article 2(i) as a fictitious deposit agreement?” vs Independent “Will further proceedings establish all elements of the defendant's liability for aiding the unauthorized fundraising?”
The primary reading asks whether long withholding of returns still falls within the prohibited promise, while the independent reading asks whether all elements of aiding liability will be established on remand.
상품 거래가 매개된 자금을 받는 행위를 같은 법 제3조, 제2조 제1호에서 금지하는 유사수신행위로 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 Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 29 March 2018 (2017No4331), found no proof of the fraud and aiding fraud charged and acquitted on both counts. On the Act on the Regulation of Fictitious Deposit-Taking Acts it held that the nationality of the unnamed operators of the foreign company could not be established, so it was unclear whether Korean law applied, and that the business description posted on the company's website did not show a principal-guarantee agreement within Article 2(i) or any licence, registration or report. It therefore held the principal's crime unproved, reversed its own first-instance conviction and acquitted on the aiding count.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that Korean criminal law bound the unnamed operators, because the fictitious deposit agreements and the receipt of the corresponding funds took place in Korea, so Article 3 and Article 2(i) of the Act on the Regulation of Fictitious Deposit-Taking Acts applied to them under Article 2 and Article 8 of the Criminal Act. It held that the operators received the advertising-pack purchase price without a licence while promising returns above it, and that the investors' ad-viewing tasks were merely feigned, a money transaction in substance, so the scheme fell within Article 2(i); a clause deferring payment of the promised returns made no difference. Since the court below had misunderstood the law and failed to hold the necessary fact-finding, the violation and aiding counts were reversed and remanded to the Seoul Central District Court, while no error was found in the acquittal on fraud and aiding fraud, so the rest of the prosecution's appeal was dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the funds are received as the genuine price of a product or of services actually rendered, so that the trade is not a cloak for a money transaction.
- Where the operator obtained the licence, registration or report required under other statutes, since the Act targets fundraising from unspecified persons without such authorisation.
- Where the fictitious deposit agreements and the receipt of the funds occurred wholly outside Korea, since the Court applied Korean law on the basis of the territorial link.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this entry, check what the investor actually bought and what work was asked of them, since the Court relied on ad-viewing missions of no more than twenty clicks a day that anyone could perform quickly. Then read the payment promise clause by clause, because a clause that only defers payment does not break the promise, and confirm the Korean link: where the membership agreements were concluded, where the money was remitted and exchanged, and whether any licence was obtained. Note that the acquittal on fraud and aiding fraud was left standing, so this decision does not decide whether the investors were defrauded.
From the official text
Points at issue
유사수신행위를 금지하는 유사수신행위의 규제에 관한 법률의 입법 취지 / 상품 거래가 매개된 자금을 받는 행위를 같은 법 제3조, 제2조 제1호에서 금지하는 유사수신행위로 볼 수 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
The legislative purpose of the Act on the Regulation of Business Operations that Receive Money from Many Persons, etc. prohibiting similar receiving business operations / cases in which the act of receiving funds where a transaction in goods is intermediated may be regarded as a similar receiving business operation prohibited under Article 3 and Article 2, subparagraph 1 of the same Act
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 유사수신행위의 규제에 관한 법률 위반 및 유사수신행위의 규제에 관한 법률 위반 방조 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다. 검사의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Business Operations that Receive Money from Many Persons, etc. and aiding and abetting a violation of the same Act is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court. The remaining portion of the prosecutor's final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
유사수신행위의 규제에 관한 법률 제1조, 제2조 제1호, 제3조, 제6조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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