Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
The meaning of 'other unlawful acts' and the intent for aiding a purpose offence
Supreme Court, Oct. 27, 2022, 2021Do12279 (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: 금융실명거래및비밀보장에관한법률위반방조
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 3(3) and Article 6(1) of the former Act on Real-Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, which punish financial transactions in another person's name for an illegal or unlawful purpose, what does 'other unlawful acts' mean, and what must an account holder have known to be liable for aiding an offence under Article 6(1)?
Holding
'Other unlawful acts' means conduct that reaches a level comparable to acts subject to criminal punishment, such as the concealment of criminal proceeds, money laundering, terror financing and evasion of compulsory execution that the provisions enumerate, and whether conduct falls within it must be judged with the legislative purpose fully in view. The perpetrator of telecom financial fraud receiving the fraud proceeds into an account in another person's name, and using another's account to obtain a customs reduction or evade customs collection by unlawful means, are such acts. An offence under Article 6(1) of the former Real-Name Financial Transactions Act is a purpose offence, because the purpose of an unlawful act is an element beyond the objective elements, so the aider too must have intent as to the principal's purpose, but need not know the concrete content of that purpose.
Points at issue, verbatim
위 규정에서 정한 ‘그 밖의 탈법행위’의 의미 및 이에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
the meaning of 'other evasive acts' provided for in the above provisions and the criteria for determining whether an act falls under such acts
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이 사건 규정에서 정한 ‘그 밖의 탈법행위’라 함은, 단순히 우회적인 방법으로 금지규정의 제한을 피하려는 행위 전반을 의미하는 것이 아니라, 이 사건 규정에 구체적으로 열거된 불법재산의 은닉, 자금세탁, 공중협박자금조달 및 강제집행의 면탈과 같이 형사처벌의 대상이 되는 행위에 준하는 정도에 이르러야 하고
Unofficial English translation
The term 'other evasive acts' provided for in the provisions in this case does not mean all acts that merely attempt to avoid the restrictions of a prohibitory provision by means of circumvention, but must reach a degree comparable to acts subject to criminal punishment, such as the concealment of criminal proceeds, money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and the evasion of compulsory execution, which are specifically enumerated in the provisions in this case, and
Factors
- 구 금융실명거래 및 비밀보장에 관한 법률 제3조 제3항, 제6조 제1항에서 불법·탈법적 목적에 의한 타인 실명의 금융거래를 처벌하는 취지
- 위 규정에서 정한 ‘그 밖의 탈법행위’의 의미 및 이에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준
- 방조범의 성립에 필요한 고의의 내용
- 목적범인 구 금융실명거래 및 비밀보장에 관한 법률 제6조 제1항 위반죄의 방조범 성립에 필요한 고의의 내용
Unofficial English translation
• The purport of punishing, in Article 3 (3) and Article 6 (1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, financial transactions under the name of another person for illegal or evasive purposes
• The meaning of 'other evasive acts' provided for in the above provisions and the criteria for determining whether an act falls under such acts
• The content of the intent required for the establishment of an accomplice by aiding and abetting
• The content of the intent required for the establishment of an accomplice by aiding and abetting the violation of Article 6 (1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, which is an offense requiring a specific purpose
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 12. 22. 선고 2017도12346 판결(공2018상, 379)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Do12346 decided December 22, 2017 (Gong 2018 Sang, 379)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2017. 12. 22. 선고 2017도12346 판결(공2018상, 379) / [2] 대법원 2005. 4. 29. 선고 2003도6056 판결(공2005상, 887), 대법원 2022. 6. 30. 선고 2020도7866 판결(공2022하, 1542)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the account holder's awareness of an unlawful purpose rests on the defendant's own statement to the investigators, what other evidence is needed before the intent to assist can be found?
The remand judgment of the Daegu District Court, once it decides whether the principal's purpose constituted 'other unlawful acts', will show how the standard is applied. A later Supreme Court decision changing the knowledge required for aiding an offence under Article 6(1) of the former Real-Name Financial Transactions Act, or an amendment to that Act or to the former Act on Reporting and Use of Specific Financial Transaction Information, would call for 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 account holder's awareness of an unlawful purpose rests on the defendant's own statement to the investigators, what other evidence is needed before the intent to assist can be found?” vs Independent “Which other forms of regulatory circumvention would reach the seriousness required to qualify as other evasive conduct?”
The primary asks what evidence beyond the defendant's investigative statement is needed to prove the aider's intent, while the independent asks which other forms of regulatory circumvention reach the required seriousness.
위 규정에서 정한 ‘그 밖의 탈법행위’의 의미 및 이에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준Raw 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 Daegu District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 25 August 2021 (2021No752), kept the first-instance acquittal on the charge of aiding a violation of Article 6(1). It held that the unnamed principal's act of remitting money to the defendant so that the defendant bought overseas goods could not be established as an offence under the Customs Act or the Act on the Punishment of Tax Crimes, and that the crime the defendant knew of differed completely from the crime the principal actually committed, with a difference in essential unlawful content.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the meaning of 'other unlawful acts' and the law on accomplice liability, and that the error affected the judgment. Sending the proceeds of telecom financial fraud to an account in another person's name is the typical misuse of another's name in a financial transaction as a means of crime, and using another's account to obtain a customs reduction or evade customs collection by unlawful means is equally covered, so that on the facts found the defendant aided the offence even though he did not know the concrete content of the principal's purpose. The Justices unanimously reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Daegu District Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- Conduct that only avoids a restriction by indirect means, without reaching a level comparable to the acts the provisions enumerate.
- An account holder who did not know at all that the principal would conduct a financial transaction in another's name for the purpose of an unlawful act, since aiding requires that intent.
- Financial transactions governed by the Act on Real-Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality and the Act on Reporting and Use of Specific Financial Transaction Information as amended on 24 March 2020 by Act No. 17113; the decision applied the versions before that amendment.
Record verification notes
Set the proposal put to the defendant on 27 January 2020 against what he actually did: the KRW 5.6 million obtained by telecom financial fraud was received into his account on 29 January 2020, and he transferred KRW 4.4 million onward as instructed. Then ask whether the principal's purpose reached the level comparable to the acts the provisions enumerate, and, for the customs example, whether the reduction or evasion was achieved by unlawful means, since the Court confined that example to unlawful means. Finally, check whether the defendant's statement to the investigators, that his account was used to avoid customs duties on the multi-shop, shows awareness of an unlawful purpose, and confirm which version of the two Acts was in force when the transactions took place.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 금융실명거래 및 비밀보장에 관한 법률 제3조 제3항, 제6조 제1항에서 불법·탈법적 목적에 의한 타인 실명의 금융거래를 처벌하는 취지 / 위 규정에서 정한 ‘그 밖의 탈법행위’의 의미 및 이에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 [2] 방조범의 성립에 필요한 고의의 내용 / 목적범인 구 금융실명거래 및 비밀보장에 관한 법률 제6조 제1항 위반죄의 방조범 성립에 필요한 고의의 내용
Unofficial English translation
[1] The purport of punishing, in Article 3 (3) and Article 6 (1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, financial transactions under the name of another person for illegal or evasive purposes / The meaning of 'other evasive acts' provided for in the above provisions and the criteria for determining whether an act falls under such acts [2] The content of the intent required for the establishment of an accomplice by aiding and abetting / The content of the intent required for the establishment of an accomplice by aiding and abetting the violation of Article 6 (1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, which is an offense requiring a specific purpose
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
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 금융실명거래 및 비밀보장에 관한 법률(2020. 3. 24. 법률 제17113호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조, 제2조 제3호, 제4호, 제3조 제3항, 제6조 제1항, 구 특정 금융거래정보의 보고 및 이용 등에 관한 법률(2020. 3. 24. 법률 제17113호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제3호(현행 제2조 제4호 참조), 제4호(현행 제2조 제5호 참조), 제5호(현행 제2조 제6호 참조) [2] 형법 제32조, 구 금융실명거래 및 비밀보장에 관한 법률(2020. 3. 24. 법률 제17113호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제3항, 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