Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Scope of Confiscation of Property Constituting Victims' Losses under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Confiscation and Return of Property Acquired Through Corrupt Practices and Criminal Facts Not Indicted
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Nov. 17, 2022, 2022Do8662 (judgment)
Case name: 사기
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May cash seized from a defendant indicted for voice phishing fraud be treated as the crime-victim property of other victims who were not indicted and be confiscated pursuant to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Confiscation and Return of Property Acquired Through Corrupt Practices?
Holding
The criminal facts that give rise to confiscation and collection of equivalent value are limited to the indicted criminal facts, and crime-victim property is likewise limited to property acquired from that victim and the like. The Supreme Court held that confiscation may be ordered only where the recovery of that victim's losses is extremely difficult, and reversed the portion of the court below's judgment concerning confiscation, which had taken into account the relationship with other victims as well.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
부패재산몰수법 제6조 제1항, 제3조 제1항, 제2조 제3호에서 정한 몰수·추징의 원인이 되는 범죄사실은 공소제기된 범죄사실에 한정되고, ‘범죄피해재산’은 그 공소제기된 범죄사실 피해자로부터 취득한 재산 또는 그 재산의 보유·처분에 의하여 얻은 재산에 한정되며, 그 피해자의 피해회복이 심히 곤란하다고 인정되는 경우에만 몰수·추징이 허용된다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The criminal facts giving rise to confiscation and collection of equivalent value as provided in Article 6 (1), Article 3 (1), and Article 2 (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Confiscation and Return of Property Acquired Through Corrupt Practices are limited to the criminal facts on which a public prosecution was instituted, "property victimized by crime" is limited to property acquired from the victim of those criminal facts on which a public prosecution was instituted, or property obtained through the retention or disposition of such property, and it must be regarded that confiscation and collection of equivalent value are permitted only where it is recognized that recovery from such victim's harm is extremely difficult.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인 2에 대한 압수된 증제1, 2호 몰수 부분을 파기하고
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below sentencing the confiscation of seized Exhibits 1 and 2 as to Defendant 2 is reversed, and
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그 피해자의 피해회복이 심히 곤란하다고 인정되는 경우에만 몰수·추징이 허용된다고 보아야 한다
Unofficial English translation
it must be regarded that confiscation and collection of equivalent value are permitted only where it is recognized that recovery from such victim's harm is extremely difficult
Factors
- 몰수의 요건이 공소가 제기된 공소사실과 관련되어 있어야 하고
- 공소가 제기되지 않은 별개의 범죄사실을 법원이 인정하여 그에 관하여 몰수나 추징을 선고하는 것은 불고불리의 원칙에 위반되어
- 그 공소제기된 범죄사실 피해자로부터 취득한 재산 또는 그 재산의 보유·처분에 의하여 얻은 재산에 한정되며
- 범인에 대한 재산반환청구권 또는 손해배상청구권 등을 행사할 수 없는 등 피해회복이 심히 곤란하다고 인정되는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• the requirements for confiscation must be related to the facts of the public prosecution on which the public prosecution was instituted, and
• it is contrary to the principle of no adjudication without accusation for the court to recognize a separate criminal fact on which no public prosecution was instituted and sentence confiscation or additional collection in respect thereof, and
• it is limited to property acquired from the victim of those criminal facts on which a public prosecution was instituted, or property obtained through the retention or disposition of such property, and
• where it is recognized that recovery from the harm is extremely difficult, such as where a right to claim return of property or a right to claim damages cannot be exercised against the offender
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
몰수·추징의 원인이 되는 범죄사실은 공소제기된 범죄사실에 한정되고
Unofficial English translation
the criminal facts giving rise to confiscation and collection of equivalent value are limited to the criminal facts on which a public prosecution was instituted
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1992. 7. 28. 선고 92도700 판결(공1992, 2615), 대법원 2010. 5. 13. 선고 2009도11732 판결, 대법원 2013. 1. 16. 선고 2012도8964 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the seized cash is commingled with the loss amount of the indicted victim and with the proceeds of other offenses, by what method must the portion subject to confiscation be identified?
This should be reexamined if Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Confiscation and Return of Property Acquired Through Corrupt Practices or the return procedure provisions of the Enforcement Decree are amended, or if a standalone confiscation regime without indictment is introduced.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
A comparison with an independent reading by another AI model (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, showed agreement on 6 of the 8 axes, with the readings diverging on Axis 6 (Relation to precedent) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Follows earlier decisions”
The part of the original text that derives the limiting requirements by synthesizing the purpose of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Confiscation and Return of Property Acquired Through Corrupt Practices and its return procedure may be read as a new standard, while the part emphasizing the principle that the court adjudicates only what is charged and the relevance of the confiscation to the charged facts may be read as an application of existing legal principles.
대법원 2013. 1. 16. 선고 2012도8964 판결Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the seized cash is commingled with the loss amount of the indicted victim and with the proceeds of other offenses, by what method must the portion subject to confiscation be identified?” vs Independent “What specific circumstances must be recognized, and to what degree, for the requirement that the recovery of the victim's losses is extremely difficult to be satisfied?”
The first reading asks by what method the portion subject to confiscation is identified from cash into which the proceeds of other offenses are commingled, while the independent reading asks about the specific criteria for satisfying the requirement that the recovery of losses is extremely difficult.
부패재산몰수법 제6조 제1항, 제3조 제1항, 제2조 제3호에서 정한 몰수·추징의 원인이 되는 범죄사실은 공소제기된 범죄사실에 한정되고, ‘범죄피해재산’은 그 공소제기된 범죄사실 피해자로부터 취득한 재산 또는 그 재산의 보유·처분에 의하여 얻은 재산에 한정되며, 그 피해자의 피해회복이 심히 곤란하다고 인정되는 경우에만 몰수·추징이 허용된다고 보아야 한다.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 court below held that, reading the Act on Special Cases concerning the Confiscation and Return of Property Acquired Through Corrupt Practices together with Article 49 of the Criminal Act, crime-victim property arising from offenses that were not indicted may also be confiscated; that the seized cash was crime-victim property obtained through the voice phishing fraud; and that, although the victims appear to be numerous, they have not been identified, and since the recovery of the victim in this case is also incomplete, the recovery of losses is extremely difficult. It therefore upheld the confiscation ordered by the trial court.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that confiscation is permitted only where the seized cash is cash that Defendant 2 acquired through fraud against the victim in this case, who was indicted, or cash obtained from the disposition thereof, and where the recovery of that victim's losses is extremely difficult. Because the court below did not establish that connection and instead recognized confiscation by relying on the relationship with other victims, the Supreme Court found a misapprehension of legal principles and a failure to exhaust deliberations, reversed and remanded the portion concerning confiscation, and dismissed the defendants' final appeals on the merits.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where it is established by evidence that the seized property was acquired from the victim of the indicted criminal facts
- Where the victim is able to exercise against the offender a claim for the return of property or a claim for damages, so that it is difficult to regard the recovery of losses as extremely difficult
- Where another offense is additionally indicted and those criminal facts are also included among the indicted criminal facts
Record verification notes
Before contesting the confiscation, one must first check the records to see whether the circumstances under which the seized property was acquired are connected to the loss amount of the victim named in the indictment, and what the state of recovery of that victim's losses is.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 형법 제49조 단서에 근거하여 몰수를 선고하기 위해서는 몰수의 요건이 공소가 제기된 공소사실과 관련되어 있어야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 공소가 제기되지 않은 별개의 범죄사실을 법원이 인정하여 그에 관하여 몰수나 추징을 선고할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 부패재산의 몰수 및 회복에 관한 특례법 제6조 제1항, 제3조 제1항, 제2조 제3호에서 정한 몰수·추징의 원인이 되는 범죄사실은 공소제기된 범죄사실에 한정되고, ‘범죄피해재산’은 그 공소제기된 범죄사실 피해자로부터 취득한 재산 또는 그 재산의 보유·처분에 의하여 얻은 재산에 한정되며, 그 피해자의 피해회복이 심히 곤란하다고 인정되는 경우에만 몰수·추징이 허용되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, in order to sentence confiscation on the basis of the proviso to Article 49 of the Criminal Act, the requirements for confiscation must be related to the facts of the public prosecution on which the public prosecution was instituted (affirmative), and whether the court may recognize a separate criminal fact on which no public prosecution was instituted and sentence confiscation or additional collection in respect thereof (negative) [2] Whether the criminal facts giving rise to confiscation and collection of equivalent value as provided in Article 6 (1), Article 3 (1), and Article 2 (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Confiscation and Return of Property Acquired Through Corrupt Practices are limited to the criminal facts on which a public prosecution was instituted, whether "property victimized by crime" is limited to property acquired from the victim of those criminal facts on which a public prosecution was instituted, or property obtained through the retention or disposition of such property, and whether confiscation and collection of equivalent value are permitted only where it is recognized that recovery from such victim's harm is extremely difficult (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 형법 제49조 단서는 "행위자에게 유죄의 재판을 아니할 때에도 몰수의 요건이 있는 때에는 몰수만을 선고할 수 있다."라고 규정하고 있으나, 우리 법제상 공소의 제기 없이 별도로 몰수만을 선고할 수 있는 제도가 마련되어 있지 않으므로, 위 규정에 근거하여 몰수를 선고하기 위해서는 몰수의 요건이 공소가 제기된 공소사실과 관련되어 있어야 하고, 공소가 제기되지 않은 별개의 범죄사실을 법원이 인정하여 그에 관하여 몰수나 추징을 선고하는 것은 불고불리의 원칙에 위반되어 허용되지 않는다. [2] 부패재산의 몰수 및 회복에 관한 특례법(이하 ‘부패재산몰수법’이라 한다)은 국제연합부패방지협약 및 그 밖의 관련 국제협약을 효율적으로 이행하기 위하여 부패재산의 몰수 및 추징, 환수 등에 관한 특례를 규정함으로써 부패범죄를 조장하는 경제적 요인을 근원적으로 제거하여 부패범죄를 효과적으로 방지·척결하고 청렴한 국제사회질서 확립에 이바지함을 목적으로 하는 법으로서(제1조), 재산범죄의 피해재산에 대한 몰수·추징을 인정하지 않는 형법과 달리, 전기통신금융사기 피해 방지 및 피해금 환급에 관한 특별법 제2조 제2호에 따른 전기통신금융사기를 포함한 특정사기범죄 등 제2조 제3호 각 목에서 정하고 있는 특정 범죄행위에 의하여 그 피해자로부터 취득한 재산 또는 그 재산의 보유·처분에 의하여 얻은 ‘범죄피해재산’에 대하여는 범죄피해자가 그 재산에 관하여 범인에 대한 재산반환청구권 또는 손해배상청구권 등을 행사할 수 없는 등 피해회복이 심히 곤란하다고 인정되는 경우 몰수·추징할 수 있고(제6조 제1항), 몰수·추징된 범죄피해재산은 피해자에게 환부한다고 규정하고 있다(제6조 제2항). 한편 부패재산의 몰수 및 회복에 관한 특례법 시행령에서는 범죄피해재산을 피해자 등에게 환부하기 위한 절차를 규정하고 있는데, 검사는 범죄피해재산 환부절차를 개시한 경우 피해자 등에게 ‘회복대상재산과 관련된 몰수재판 또는 추징재판을 한 법원, 재판 연월일 및 확정 연월일, 사건번호, 재판을 받은 피고인의 성명, 그 몰수 또는 추징의 이유가 된 범죄사실의 요지 및 죄명’을 포함한 여러 사항을 신속하게 통지해야 한다고 규정하고 있다(제5조 제1항). 이러한 피해재산에 대한 몰수·추징의 원칙과 부패재산몰수법의 입법 목적, 범죄피해재산에 대한 몰수·추징을 허용하는 범죄를 특정범죄로 한정하면서 피해자 등에 대한 환부절차를 두고 있는 취지 등을 종합적으로 고려하면, 부패재산몰수법 제6조 제1항, 제3조 제1항, 제2조 제3호에서 정한 몰수·추징의 원인이 되는 범죄사실은 공소제기된 범죄사실에 한정되고, ‘범죄피해재산’은 그 공소제기된 범죄사실 피해자로부터 취득한 재산 또는 그 재산의 보유·처분에 의하여 얻은 재산에 한정되며, 그 피해자의 피해회복이 심히 곤란하다고 인정되는 경우에만 몰수·추징이 허용된다고 보아야 한다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인 2에 대한 압수된 증제1, 2호 몰수 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울동부지방법원에 환송한다. 피고인 1의 상고 및 피고인 2의 나머지 상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below sentencing the confiscation of seized Exhibits 1 and 2 as to Defendant 2 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court. The appeal of Defendant 1 and the remaining appeal of Defendant 2 are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제49조 [2] 부패재산의 몰수 및 회복에 관한 특례법 제1조, 제2조 제3호, 제3조 제1항, 제6조, 부패재산의 몰수 및 회복에 관한 특례법 시행령 제5조 제1항, 형법 제49조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. 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