Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
ATM input without bank staff involvement is not deception under the obstruction offence
Supreme Court, Feb. 11, 2022, 2021Do15246 (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: 사기·사문서위조·위조사문서행사·업무방해
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a defendant acting with a telephone-fraud organisation entered a third party's name and resident registration number into a bank's ATM and deposited cash below KRW 1,000,000 per transaction to evade the 'one person, one day, KRW 1,000,000' limit, was that conduct 'deception' within the offence of obstruction of business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act?
Holding
It was not. 'Deception' in the offence of obstruction of business means making the other side misconceive, mistake or be unaware of something and using that. Entering information into an information-processing device may be deception when it is done to make the person in charge of the work misconceive on the basis of that information, but it is not where no such person was involved; here the deposit was completed by the machine, printed out on the spot, and no bank employee's work intervened, so the conduct was not deception.
Points at issue, verbatim
피고인이 무매체 입금거래 한도 제한을 피하기 위하여 제3자의 이름과 주민등록번호를 이용하여 1회 100만 원 이하의 무매체 입금거래를 하였더라도 업무방해죄의 ‘위계’에 해당하지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
Even though the defendant used the third person's name and resident registration number to make medialess deposit transactions of KRW 1 million or less per instance in order to evade the limit on medialess deposit transactions, those transactions do not constitute 'deception' for the crime of obstruction of business
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 춘천지방법원 강릉지원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangneung Branch of the Chuncheon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위계에 의한 업무방해죄에서 ‘위계’란 행위자가 행위목적을 달성하기 위하여 상대방에게 오인, 착각 또는 부지를 일으키게 하여 이를 이용하는 것을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
In the crime of obstruction of business by deception, 'deception' means that the actor causes the other party to be mistaken, in error, or ignorant in order to achieve the purpose of the act and takes advantage thereof.
Factors
- 피고인이 전화금융사기 편취금을 혼자 한꺼번에 자동화기기를 통해 무매체 입금하는 것임에도 마치 여러 명이 각각 피해자 은행들의 ‘1인 1일 100만 원’ 한도를 준수하면서 입금하는 것처럼 가장하여
- 무매체 입금거래가 완결되는 과정에서 은행 직원 등 다른 사람의 업무가 관여되었다고 볼 만한 사정이 없으므로
- 피고인이 무매체 입금거래 한도 제한을 피하기 위하여 제3자의 이름과 주민등록번호를 이용하여 1회 100만 원 이하의 무매체 입금거래를 하였더라도
Unofficial English translation
• Although he deposited the proceeds of voice phishing fraud all at once on his own by way of automated teller machines without using a cash card or passbook, he disguised himself as if a number of persons were each making deposits in compliance with the victim banks' limit of 'KRW 1 million per person per day,'
• in the course in which the medialess deposit transaction is completed, there are no circumstances under which the work of other persons such as bank employees can be regarded as having been involved, and therefore,
• even though the defendant used the third person's name and resident registration number to make medialess deposit transactions of KRW 1 million or less per instance in order to evade the limit on medialess deposit transactions,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 11. 28. 선고 2013도5117 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5117 decided November 28, 2013
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2007. 12. 27. 선고 2005도6404 판결(공2008상, 167), 대법원 2013. 11. 28. 선고 2013도5117 판결(공2014상, 145)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where an automated deposit made with another person's identifiers later triggers a review by a bank employee, does that later work supply the misperception the offence requires?
The remand judgment by the Chuncheon District Court, Gangneung Branch, will show how the facts were re-found after the reversal. A later Supreme Court decision treating automated processing as the bank's work in which misperception can arise, or any amendment to Article 314 of the Criminal Act covering ATM fraud, 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 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The primary frames the holding as a general requirement for deception, while the independent reading applies that test to the facts of this case. The text both states the test and applies it, so either label fits.
은행 직원 등 다른 사람의 업무가 관여되었다고 볼 만한 사정이 없으므로Raw 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 Chuncheon District Court, Gangneung Branch, in its judgment of 21 October 2021 (2021No279), left standing the first-instance conviction on the obstruction of business charge. The reasons state only the theory of that charge: the defendant deposited the fraud proceeds alone in one go through the ATMs, yet appeared as several persons each respecting the KRW 1,000,000 daily limit, entering a third party's name and resident registration number and splitting the cash below that limit to undisclosed accounts. The decision does not set out the first-instance court's own reasoning.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the law on obstruction of business. The deposit was completed when the defendant entered the third party's information and the recipient's account and inserted the cash, and no bank employee's work was involved in completing it, so no person was placed under misperception and there was no deception. Because the obstruction charge and the other convictions were concurrent offences carrying one sentence, the whole judgment had to be reversed, and the Court remanded the case to the court below without addressing the grounds of appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which entering information into an ATM was done to make the person in charge of the work, working from that information, misconceive, mistake or be unaware of something.
- A deposit whose completion involved a bank employee's or another person's work, since the Court relied on the absence of any such involvement.
- A case in which the transaction was completed and the receipt printed at once, with no further bank process left to run after the cash was inserted.
Record verification notes
Trace each deposit from the input of the third party's name, resident registration number and recipient account to the moment the transaction completed and the receipt printed, and look for any human step in between, since the whole turn of the decision rests on its absence. Then hold the file against the definition of deception the Court restated, which requires a person placed under misperception and that state used.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 위계에 의한 업무방해죄에서 ‘위계’의 의미 / 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치에 정보를 입력하는 등의 행위가 업무방해죄의 위계에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 [2] 피고인이 전화금융사기 편취금을 혼자 한꺼번에 자동화기기를 통해 무매체 입금하는 것임에도 마치 여러 명이 각각 피해자 은행들의 ‘1인 1일 100만 원’ 한도를 준수하면서 입금하는 것처럼 가장하여 전화금융사기 조직원으로부터 제공받은 제3자의 이름과 주민등록번호를 자동화기기에 입력한 후 100만 원 이하의 금액으로 나누어 불상의 계좌로 무매체 입금함으로써 위 조직원과 공모하여 위계로써 피해자 은행들의 업무를 방해하였다는 내용으로 기소된 사안에서, 피고인이 자동화기기에 제3자의 이름, 주민등록번호와 수령계좌를 입력한 후 현금을 투입하고 피고인이 입력한 정보에 따라 수령계좌로 그 돈이 입금됨으로써 무매체 입금거래가 완결되는 과정에서 은행 직원 등 다른 사람의 업무가 관여되었다고 볼 만한 사정이 없으므로, 피고인이 무매체 입금거래 한도 제한을 피하기 위하여 제3자의 이름과 주민등록번호를 이용하여 1회 100만 원 이하의 무매체 입금거래를 하였더라도 업무방해죄의 ‘위계’에 해당하지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of 'deception' in the crime of obstruction of business by deception / criteria for determining whether an act of inputting information into a computer or other information processing device constitutes 'deception' for the crime of obstruction of business [2] In a case in which the defendant was prosecuted on the charge that, although he deposited the proceeds of voice phishing fraud all at once on his own by way of automated teller machines without using a cash card or passbook, he disguised himself as if a number of persons were each making deposits in compliance with the victim banks' limit of 'KRW 1 million per person per day,' input into the automated teller machine the name and resident registration number of a third person provided by a member of the voice phishing organization, and then deposited sums of KRW 1 million or less in divided amounts into unidentified accounts by way of medialess deposit transactions, thereby colluding with the said member and interfering with the business of the victim banks by deception, where, in the course in which the medialess deposit transaction is completed by the defendant's inputting the third person's name, resident registration number, and receiving account into the automated teller machine, inserting cash, and the money being deposited into the receiving account in accordance with the information input by the defendant, there are no circumstances under which the work of other persons such as bank employees can be regarded as having been involved, even though the defendant used the third person's name and resident registration number to make medialess deposit transactions of KRW 1 million or less per instance in order to evade the limit on medialess deposit transactions, those transactions do not constitute 'deception' for the crime of obstruction of business
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 춘천지방법원 강릉지원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangneung Branch of the Chuncheon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제314조 제1항 [2] 형법 제30조, 제314조 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