Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
ATM entries as stratagem and as deception of the person paying
Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2022Do1862 (judgment)
Case name: 업무방해·컴퓨터등사용사기(인정된죄명:사기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When a person enters information into an information-processing device, such as an ATM, with the purpose of causing the misjudgment, error or unawareness of the person in charge of the business on the basis of that information, is the act still stratagem although it was not directly aimed at that person, and where the result of that information processing puts the person making the property disposition into error, is it deception of a person for the offence of fraud?
Holding
Yes to both on these facts. An act of entering information into an information-processing device remains stratagem where it was done with the purpose of causing, on the basis of the information entered, the misjudgment, error or unawareness of the person in charge of the business, even though it was not directly aimed at that person. And where that act puts the person making the property disposition into error through the result of the information processing, it is deception of a person, unlike a matter handled mechanically and automatically without human involvement.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러나 비록 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치에 정보를 입력하는 등의 행위가 재산적 처분행위를 하는 사람을 직접적인 대상으로 한 것이 아니라고 하더라도, 그러한 행위로 인한 정보처리의 결과를 통하여 재산적 처분행위를 하는 사람을 착오에 빠뜨렸다면, 단지 사람의 개입 없이 컴퓨터 등에 의하여 기계적·자동적으로 처리되는 경우와는 달리 사람에 대한 기망행위에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
However, even though an act such as inputting information into a computer or other information processing device is not directed at the person who makes a disposition of property as its direct object, if such act causes the person who makes a disposition of property to fall into error through the result of information processing arising therefrom, unlike a case where the matter is processed mechanically and automatically by a computer or the like without human intervention, it constitutes an act of deception against a person.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위계에 의한 업무방해죄의 성립 요건인 위계는 행위자가 행위목적을 달성하기 위하여 상대방에게 오인, 착각 또는 부지를 일으키게 하여 이를 이용하는 것을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
The deception, which is a requirement for the establishment of the offense of obstruction of business by deception, refers to the actor, in order to achieve the purpose of the act, causing the other party to fall into mistake, misconception, or unawareness and taking advantage thereof.
Factors
- 행위자가 행위목적을 달성하기 위하여 상대방에게 오인, 착각 또는 부지를 일으키게 하여 이를 이용하는 것을 말한다
- 업무방해의 결과가 실제로 발생함을 요하지 않고, 업무방해의 결과를 초래할 위험이 발생하면 족하며
- 업무의 적정성 또는 공정성이 방해된 경우에도 업무방해죄가 성립한다
- 그 입력된 정보 등을 바탕으로 업무를 담당하는 사람의 오인, 착각 또는 부지를 일으킬 목적으로 행해진 경우에는
- 재산변동에 관한 사무가 사람의 개입 없이 컴퓨터 등에 의하여 기계적·자동적으로 처리되는 경우 등과 같이 사람에 대한 기망행위를 수반하지 않는다면 사기죄로 처벌할 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
• it refers to the actor, in order to achieve the purpose of the act, causing the other party to fall into mistake, misconception, or unawareness and taking advantage thereof
• it is not required that the result of obstruction of business actually occur; it is sufficient that a risk of causing the result of obstruction of business arises, and
• the offense of obstruction of business is established even where the propriety or fairness of the work is obstructed
• where it is committed for the purpose of causing the person in charge of the work to fall into mistake, misconception, or unawareness on the basis of such inputted information, etc.,
• if it does not accompany an act of deception against a person, such as where a matter concerning a change in property is processed mechanically and automatically by a computer or the like without human intervention, one cannot be punished for the offense of fraud
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 11. 28. 선고 2013도4178 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4178 decided November 28, 2013
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2013. 11. 28. 선고 2013도4178 판결 / [2] 대법원 1984. 2. 14. 선고 83도2995 판결(공1984, 475), 대법원 2017. 2. 16. 선고 2016도13362 전원합의체 판결(공2017상, 673), 대법원 2017. 9. 26. 선고 2017도8449 판결(공2017하, 2147), 대법원 2020. 2. 27. 선고 2019도14960 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a human employee's involvement in the payment is wholly formal and merely confirms a result already produced by the information processing, is the deception still deception of a person for the offence of fraud?
A later Supreme Court decision refining the line between mechanised processing and a human decision, in the line of Supreme Court Decision 2019Do14960, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 314(1) or Article 347 of the Criminal Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
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 decision states only that the Uijeongbu District Court, in its judgment of 18 January 2022 (2020No2941), found all the charged facts proved for the reasons it gave. On the facts as charged, the defendants ran massage parlours or lived with the operators and were members of the victim bank, and from early May to mid-June 2018 they inserted check cards issued by that bank into the ATMs installed at the premises and made some 8,000 to 10,000 cash withdrawals that were not genuine banking transactions but were made only to earn the fees, causing the bank to pay the VAN company the fees for those withdrawals.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the law as stated and the lawfully admitted evidence, it held that the court below had not violated the rules of logic and experience, had not stepped beyond the limits of free evaluation, and had not misapprehended the law on stratagem in the offence of obstruction of business or on deception in the offence of fraud. All the Justices concurred and dismissed every appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the property-change business is handled mechanically and automatically by a computer without any human involvement, so that no person is deceived and the offence of fraud cannot be made out.
- An act of entering information that was not done with the purpose of causing, on the basis of that information, the misjudgment, error or unawareness of the person in charge of the business, so that it is not stratagem.
- A case in which no risk of obstructing the business arose at all, since the offence needs only the risk of obstruction and not its actual occurrence.
Record verification notes
Set the ATM use contract and the fee arrangement against the transactions relied on, since the defendants here were members of the victim bank and were exempt from the fees ordinary customers bear, and the gain lay in the fees the bank paid the VAN company, of KRW 1,020 per cash withdrawal and KRW 850 per account transfer. Then trace which employee of the bank believed the transactions to be genuine and decided to make the payment, because the fraud count rests on that person's error, and confirm the number of withdrawals and the fees the bank actually paid.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 위계에 의한 업무방해죄의 성립 요건 / 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치에 정보를 입력하는 등의 행위가 그 입력된 정보 등을 바탕으로 업무를 담당하는 사람의 오인, 착각 또는 부지를 일으킬 목적으로 행해진 경우, 그 행위가 업무를 담당하는 사람을 직접적인 대상으로 이루어진 것이 아니라도 ‘위계’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) [2] 사기죄의 성립 요건으로서 ‘기망행위’의 의미 및 사람에 대한 기망행위를 수반하지 않는 경우 사기죄로 처벌할 수 있는지 여부(소극) / 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치에 정보를 입력하는 등의 행위가 재산적 처분행위를 하는 사람을 직접적인 대상으로 한 것은 아니나 그러한 행위로 인한 정보처리의 결과를 통하여 재산적 처분행위를 하는 사람을 착오에 빠뜨린 경우, 사람에 대한 기망행위에 해당하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Requirements for the establishment of the offense of obstruction of business by deception / Where an act such as inputting information into a computer or other information processing device is committed for the purpose of causing the person in charge of the work to fall into mistake, misconception, or unawareness on the basis of such inputted information, etc., whether the act constitutes 'deception' even though it is not directed at the person in charge of the work as its direct object (affirmative) [2] The meaning of an 'act of deception' as a requirement for the establishment of the offense of fraud, and whether one may be punished for the offense of fraud in a case where the act does not accompany an act of deception against a person (negative) / Where an act such as inputting information into a computer or other information processing device is not directed at the person who makes a disposition of property as its direct object, but such act causes the person who makes a disposition of property to fall into error through the result of information processing arising therefrom, whether the act constitutes an act of deception against a person (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 위계에 의한 업무방해죄의 성립 요건인 위계는 행위자가 행위목적을 달성하기 위하여 상대방에게 오인, 착각 또는 부지를 일으키게 하여 이를 이용하는 것을 말한다. 업무방해죄의 성립에는 업무방해의 결과가 실제로 발생함을 요하지 않고, 업무방해의 결과를 초래할 위험이 발생하면 족하며, 업무수행 자체가 아니라 업무의 적정성 또는 공정성이 방해된 경우에도 업무방해죄가 성립한다. 나아가 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치에 정보를 입력하는 등의 행위가 그 입력된 정보 등을 바탕으로 업무를 담당하는 사람의 오인, 착각 또는 부지를 일으킬 목적으로 행해진 경우에는 그 행위가 업무를 담당하는 사람을 직접적인 대상으로 이루어진 것이 아니라고 하여 위계가 아니라고 할 수는 없다. [2] 사기죄의 성립 요건인 기망행위는 사람으로 하여금 착오를 일으키게 하는 것을 말한다. 그리하여 재산변동에 관한 사무가 사람의 개입 없이 컴퓨터 등에 의하여 기계적·자동적으로 처리되는 경우 등과 같이 사람에 대한 기망행위를 수반하지 않는다면 사기죄로 처벌할 수 없다. 그러나 비록 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치에 정보를 입력하는 등의 행위가 재산적 처분행위를 하는 사람을 직접적인 대상으로 한 것이 아니라고 하더라도, 그러한 행위로 인한 정보처리의 결과를 통하여 재산적 처분행위를 하는 사람을 착오에 빠뜨렸다면, 단지 사람의 개입 없이 컴퓨터 등에 의하여 기계적·자동적으로 처리되는 경우와는 달리 사람에 대한 기망행위에 해당한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제314조 제1항 / [2] 형법 제347조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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