Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Handing found property to a false claimant as a disposal in fraud
Supreme Court, Dec. 29, 2022, 2022Do12494 (judgment)
Case name: 절도(인정된죄명:사기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a shop owner who found a dropped wallet handed it to a person who claimed it was his own, was that handover a disposal act in fraud, so that the taker's conduct is not theft, and what must be shown when the person deceived and the person who lost the property are not the same?
Holding
Yes. The Court said a disposal act is recognised whenever the property or a property benefit is obtained through some act grounded in the deceived person's own will, so that the shop owner, who held the wallet and had to return it to its true owner, disposed of it for the victim and the taker did not commit theft. Where the deceived person and the victim of the loss are not the same, fraud also requires the deceived person to hold the authority, or the position, to dispose of that property for the victim.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
피기망자의 의사에 기초한 어떤 행위를 통해 행위자 등이 재물 또는 재산상의 이익을 취득하였다고 평가할 수 있는 경우라면, 사기죄에서 말하는 처분행위가 인정된다.
Unofficial English translation
Where, through an act based on the will of the person deceived, the actor or others may be evaluated as having acquired property or a pecuniary advantage, an act of disposition as referred to in the offense of fraud is recognized.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
피기망자와 재산상의 피해자가 같은 사람이 아닌 경우에는 피기망자가 피해자를 위하여 그 재산을 처분할 수 있는 권능을 갖거나 그 지위에 있어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the person deceived and the person suffering pecuniary damage are not the same person, the person deceived must have the authority or be in a position to dispose of that property on behalf of the victim.
Factors
- 피기망자의 의사에 기초한 어떤 행위를 통해 행위자 등이 재물 또는 재산상의 이익을 취득하였다고 평가할 수 있는 경우라면
- 피기망자가 착오에 빠져 어떠한 재산상의 처분행위를 하도록 유발하여 재산적 이득을 얻을 것을 요하고
- 피기망자가 피해자를 위하여 그 재산을 처분할 수 있는 권능을 갖거나 그 지위에 있어야 한다.
- 지갑을 습득하여 진정한 소유자에게 돌려주어야 하는 지위에 있으므로
- 지갑의 소유자라고 주장하는 피고인에게 지갑을 교부하였고 이를 통해 피고인이 지갑을 취득하여 자유로운 처분이 가능한 상태가 되었으므로
Unofficial English translation
• Where, through an act based on the will of the person deceived, the actor or others may be evaluated as having acquired property or a pecuniary advantage,
• it requires that the person deceived be induced, having fallen into error, to perform an act of disposition of property and that pecuniary gain be thereby obtained, and
• the person deceived must have the authority or be in a position to dispose of that property on behalf of the victim.
• since B was in a position, having picked up the wallet, to return it to its true owner,
• B delivered the wallet to the defendant, who claimed to be its owner, and thereby the defendant acquired the wallet and came into a state where he could freely dispose of it,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 2. 16. 선고 2016도13362 전원합의체 판결(공2017상, 673)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc judgment 2016Do13362 decided February 16, 2017 (Gong 2017 Sang, 673)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1991. 1. 11. 선고 90도2180 판결(공1991, 784), 대법원 1994. 10. 11. 선고 94도1575 판결(공1994하, 3027), 대법원 2006. 9. 28. 선고 2006도2963 판결, 대법원 2017. 2. 16. 선고 2016도13362 전원합의체 판결(공2017상, 673), 대법원 2018. 8. 1. 선고 2018도7030 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How is it decided that a person who came across the property and kept it holds the position requiring its return to its true owner?
A later decision on when a finder's position requiring return to the true owner arises would change how the disposal act is found here. An amendment to Article 329 or Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act would also require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The holding states both a general disposal test and its case application, so it can be read as stating requirements or as applying law to facts.
을의 행위는 사기죄에서 말하는 처분행위에 해당하고 피고인의 행위를 절취행위로 평가할 수 없다는 이유로Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How is it decided that a person who came across the property and kept it holds the position requiring its return to its true owner?” vs Independent “Would the same deception constitute fraud if the person handing over the wallet lacked authority or a position to dispose of it for the owner?”
The primary asks how finder status requiring return is determined, while the independent asks whether fraud still holds without such authority.
피기망자의 의사에 기초한 어떤 행위를 통해 행위자 등이 재물 또는 재산상의 이익을 취득하였다고 평가할 수 있는 경우라면, 사기죄에서 말하는 처분행위가 인정된다.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 Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 26 September 2022 (2022No1176), decided on a record in which, on the evidence adopted at first instance and on appeal, the victim dropped a brown men's wallet while visiting a shop to buy a driver on 16 May 2021, and about ten minutes later the defendant, after buying an umbrella there, was asked by the shop owner whether the wallet was his, answered that it was, and took it away. On that record it acquitted the defendant on the principal charge of theft and convicted on the alternative charge of fraud added during the appeal proceedings.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. The shop owner was in a position obliged to return the wallet to its true owner and so held the authority, or the position, to dispose of it for the victim; on that basis he handed the wallet to the defendant, who thereby obtained it and could dispose of it freely, which is a disposal act in fraud and not theft. It dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned.
Distinguishing conditions
- A taker who seizes the property against the possessor's will, with no act of the possessor grounded in their own will by which the taker obtains it, which the Court treated as theft rather than disposal.
- A case in which the person deceived and the person who lost the property are the same, so that the requirement of authority or position to dispose for the victim does not arise.
- A person who handed the item over without holding a position requiring its return to the true owner, since the Court rested the disposal on that position.
Record verification notes
Identify who held the item at the moment of handover and why they were obliged to return it to its true owner, since the disposal rested on that position and not on ownership. Then set the taker's words against the handover to see whether the transfer followed a false claim of ownership and left the taker free to dispose of the item.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 형법상 ‘절취’의 의미 및 사기죄에서 처분행위가 갖는 역할과 기능 / 피기망자의 의사에 기초한 어떤 행위를 통해 행위자 등이 재물 또는 재산상의 이익을 취득하였다고 평가할 수 있는 경우, 사기죄에서 말하는 처분행위가 인정되는지 여부(적극) / 피기망자와 재산상의 피해자가 같은 사람이 아닌 경우에 사기죄가 성립하려면 피기망자가 피해자를 위하여 그 재산을 처분할 수 있는 권능을 갖거나 그 지위에 있어야 하는지 여부(적극) [2] 피해자 갑은 드라이버를 구매하기 위해 특정 매장에 방문하였다가 지갑을 떨어뜨렸는데, 10분쯤 후 피고인이 같은 매장에서 우산을 구매하고 계산을 마친 뒤, 지갑을 발견하여 습득한 매장 주인 을로부터 "이 지갑이 선생님 지갑이 맞느냐?"라는 질문을 받자 "내 것이 맞다."라고 대답한 후 이를 교부받아 가지고 간 사안에서, 을의 행위는 사기죄에서 말하는 처분행위에 해당하고, 피고인의 행위를 절취행위로 평가할 수 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of 'taking away' under the Criminal Act and the role and function of an act of disposition in the offense of fraud / Whether an act of disposition as referred to in the offense of fraud is recognized where, through an act based on the will of the person deceived, the actor or others may be evaluated as having acquired property or a pecuniary advantage (affirmative) / Where the person deceived and the person suffering pecuniary damage are not the same person, whether the offense of fraud is established only where the person deceived has the authority or is in a position to dispose of that property on behalf of the victim (affirmative) [2] In a case where victim A visited a particular store to purchase a screwdriver and dropped his wallet, and about 10 minutes later, after the defendant purchased an umbrella at the same store and completed payment, the store owner B, who found and picked up the wallet, asked him, "Is this wallet yours, sir?", whereupon he answered, "It is mine," and received and took it away, a case in which it was held that B's act corresponds to an act of disposition as referred to in the offense of fraud, and that the defendant's act cannot be evaluated as an act of taking away
Summary of the holding
[1] 형법상 절취란 타인이 점유하고 있는 자기 이외의 자의 소유물을 점유자의 의사에 반하여 점유를 배제하고 자기 또는 제3자의 점유로 옮기는 것을 말한다. 이에 반해 기망의 방법으로 타인으로 하여금 처분행위를 하도록 하여 재물 또는 재산상 이익을 취득한 경우에는 절도죄가 아니라 사기죄가 성립한다. 사기죄에서 처분행위는 행위자의 기망행위에 의한 피기망자의 착오와 행위자 등의 재물 또는 재산상 이익의 취득이라는 최종적 결과를 중간에서 매개·연결하는 한편, 착오에 빠진 피해자의 행위를 이용하여 재산을 취득하는 것을 본질적 특성으로 하는 사기죄와 피해자의 행위에 의하지 아니하고 행위자가 탈취의 방법으로 재물을 취득하는 절도죄를 구분하는 역할을 한다. 처분행위가 갖는 이러한 역할과 기능을 고려하면 피기망자의 의사에 기초한 어떤 행위를 통해 행위자 등이 재물 또는 재산상의 이익을 취득하였다고 평가할 수 있는 경우라면, 사기죄에서 말하는 처분행위가 인정된다. 한편 사기죄가 성립되려면 피기망자가 착오에 빠져 어떠한 재산상의 처분행위를 하도록 유발하여 재산적 이득을 얻을 것을 요하고, 피기망자와 재산상의 피해자가 같은 사람이 아닌 경우에는 피기망자가 피해자를 위하여 그 재산을 처분할 수 있는 권능을 갖거나 그 지위에 있어야 한다. [2] 피해자 갑은 드라이버를 구매하기 위해 특정 매장에 방문하였다가 지갑을 떨어뜨렸는데, 10분쯤 후 피고인이 같은 매장에서 우산을 구매하고 계산을 마친 뒤, 지갑을 발견하여 습득한 매장 주인 을로부터 "이 지갑이 선생님 지갑이 맞느냐?"라는 질문을 받자 "내 것이 맞다."라고 대답한 후 이를 교부받아 가지고 간 사안에서, 을은 지갑을 습득하여 진정한 소유자에게 돌려주어야 하는 지위에 있으므로 갑을 위하여 이를 처분할 수 있는 권능을 갖거나 그 지위에 있었으며, 이러한 처분 권능과 지위에 기초하여 지갑의 소유자라고 주장하는 피고인에게 지갑을 교부하였고 이를 통해 피고인이 지갑을 취득하여 자유로운 처분이 가능한 상태가 되었으므로, 을의 행위는 사기죄에서 말하는 처분행위에 해당하고 피고인의 행위를 절취행위로 평가할 수 없다는 이유로, 피고인에 대한 주위적 공소사실인 절도 부분을 이유에서 무죄로 판단하면서 예비적 공소사실인 사기 부분을 유죄로 인정한 원심의 판단이 정당하다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제329조, 제347조 [2] 형법 제329조, 제347조 제1항
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. 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