Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Identity of the Protected Legal Interest and Single Comprehensive Offense Analysis in Fraud Against a Married Couple
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Dec. 21, 2023, 2023Do13514 (judgment)
Case name: 사기[일부인정된죄명:특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)]·도로교통법위반(무면허운전)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Even where the victims are a married couple who made remittances from accounts held in their respective names, may the fraud against them be regarded as a single comprehensive offense involving an identical protected legal interest?
Holding
Fraud against multiple victims in principle constitutes an independent offense for each victim, but where there are circumstances warranting a finding that the protected legal interest is identical, it becomes a single comprehensive offense. The Supreme Court held that the identity of the protected legal interest must be determined by taking into account not only the attribution of rights under civil law but also the commonality of the act of deception and the investment decision, the source of funds in the form of joint property, and the other circumstances of the case, and affirmed the court below, which regarded the fraud against the married victims as a single comprehensive offense.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
다만 피해자들의 피해법익이 동일하다고 볼 수 있는 사정이 있는 경우에는 이들에 대한 사기죄를 포괄하여 일죄로 볼 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
However, where there are circumstances under which the legal interests infringed upon the victims may be regarded as identical, the offenses of fraud against them may be collectively regarded as a single offense.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
민사상 권리 귀속관계 외에 해당 사건에 나타난 다른 사정도 함께 고려하여 판단해야 하는데
Unofficial English translation
a determination must be made by taking into account, in addition to the civil law attribution of rights, other circumstances revealed in the relevant case,
Factors
- 기망행위의 공통성, 기망행위에 이르게 된 경위
- 재산 교부에 관한 의사결정의 공통성
- 재산의 형성·유지 과정
- 재산 교부의 목적 및 방법, 기망행위 이후의 정황
Unofficial English translation
• the commonality of the acts of deception and the circumstances leading to the acts of deception
• the commonality of the decision-making concerning the delivery of property
• the process of formation and maintenance of the property
• the purpose and method of the delivery of property, and the circumstances following the acts of deception
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 4. 23. 선고 2014도16980 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2014Do16980 decided April 23, 2015
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1989. 6. 13. 선고 89도582 판결(공1989, 1103), 대법원 2003. 4. 8. 선고 2003도382 판결(공2003상, 1134), 대법원 2015. 4. 23. 선고 2014도16980 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
May the same determination of identity of the protected legal interest be applied to victims who are not a married couple but are in a relationship in which they manage property together, such as family members or business partners?
This reading will be checked again if the case law on the method of calculating the amount gained under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes or on the count analysis of fraud against multiple victims changes.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading conducted by another AI line (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 6 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Since the original text explains that the various circumstances must be considered together and applies this to the specific case of the married victims, the primary reading may focus on the method of comprehensive assessment, while the independent reading may focus on the application to the facts.
피해자들에 대한 사기죄의 피해법익이 동일하다고 평가될 수 있어 이들에 대한 사기죄가 포괄일죄를 구성한다고 한 사례.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “May the same determination of identity of the protected legal interest be applied to victims who are not a married couple but are in a relationship in which they manage property together, such as family members or business partners?” vs Independent “Can identity of the protected legal interest be recognized even where the victims delivered their respective separate property, rather than joint property, in accordance with the same investment decision?”
The primary reading asks whether the scope may be extended to relationships involving the joint management of property other than that of a married couple, while the independent reading asks about cases in which separate property was delivered instead of joint property.
다만 피해자들의 피해법익이 동일하다고 볼 수 있는 사정이 있는 경우에는 이들에 대한 사기죄를 포괄하여 일죄로 볼 수 있다.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 (Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) 2023No53) held that the offense of fraud against the married victims constituted a single comprehensive offense, and, taking the aggregate amount gained to be 575 million won, found the defendant guilty by applying Article 3 (1) subparagraph 2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which provides for aggravated punishment where the amount gained exceeds 500 million won.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found the protected legal interest to be identical, holding that, even though the money in the accounts in each victim's name is attributed to each of them under civil law, the act of deception was carried out jointly in respect of the married couple, and under the common purpose of preparing for old age they jointly decided to invest the proceeds from the sale of a building that was joint property, and the defendant provided security to Victim Kap for the entire amount invested, and other circumstances existed. The fact that contracts were drawn up separately for each victim and remittances were made from each victim's own account was held to be inconsistent with that conclusion is not so, and the final appeal was dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the defendant committed separate acts of deception in respect of each victim and the victims made investment decisions independently
- A case in which the victims delivered property for different purposes, using their respective separate property as the source of funds
- A case in which it is shown that the defendant managed the investment funds of each victim separately or provided separate security, thereby treating the victims as separate entities
Record verification notes
Before aggregating the amount gained as a single comprehensive offense, one should check in the Records separately whether the act of deception was carried out in common, whether the source of the investment was joint property, whether the investment decision was made jointly, and whether the defendant treated the victims as one unit after the offense.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 다수의 피해자에 대하여 각각 기망행위를 하여 각 피해자로부터 재물을 편취한 경우, 범의가 단일하고 범행방법이 동일하더라도 피해자별로 독립한 사기죄가 성립하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 피해자들의 피해법익이 동일하다고 볼 수 있는 사정이 있는 경우, 이들에 대한 사기죄를 포괄일죄로 볼 수 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 피고인이 부부인 피해자 갑과 을에게 ‘토지를 매수하여 분필한 후 이를 분양해서 원금 및 수익금을 지급하겠다.’면서 기망한 후, 이에 속아 피고인에게 투자하기 위해 공동재산인 건물을 매도하여 돈을 마련한 피해자들로부터 피해자 갑 명의 예금계좌에서 1억 원, 피해자 을 명의 예금계좌에서 4억 7,500만 원, 합계 5억 7,500만 원을 송금받아 이를 편취하였다는 이유로 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(사기)죄로 기소된 사안에서, 피해자들에 대한 사기죄의 피해법익이 동일하다고 평가될 수 있어 이들에 대한 사기죄가 포괄일죄를 구성한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where an act of deception is committed against each of multiple victims and money is obtained by fraud from each victim, whether independent offenses of fraud are established for each victim even though the intent is single and the method of the offense is identical (affirmative), and, in such case, where there are circumstances under which the legal interests infringed upon the victims may be regarded as identical, whether the offenses of fraud against them may be regarded as a single comprehensive offense (affirmative) [2] In a case where the defendant was prosecuted for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (fraud) on the ground that the defendant deceived the victims, A and B, who were a married couple, by stating that the defendant would purchase and subdivide land and, after distributing it, pay the principal and profits, and that, having been deceived thereby, the victims sold a building that was their joint property in order to raise money to invest in the defendant, and the defendant received and thereby obtained by fraud a wire transfer totaling 575 million won, consisting of 100 million won from the deposit account in the name of victim A and 475 million won from the deposit account in the name of victim B, a case in which the offenses of fraud against the victims were held to constitute a single comprehensive offense on the ground that the legal interests infringed upon by the offenses of fraud against the victims may be evaluated as identical
Summary of the holding
[1] 다수의 피해자에 대하여 각각 기망행위를 하여 각 피해자로부터 재물을 편취한 경우에는 범의가 단일하고 범행방법이 동일하더라도 각 피해자의 피해법익은 독립한 것이므로 이를 포괄일죄로 파악할 수 없고 피해자별로 독립한 사기죄가 성립된다. 다만 피해자들의 피해법익이 동일하다고 볼 수 있는 사정이 있는 경우에는 이들에 대한 사기죄를 포괄하여 일죄로 볼 수 있다. [2] 피고인이 부부인 피해자 갑과 을에게 ‘토지를 매수하여 분필한 후 이를 분양해서 원금 및 수익금을 지급하겠다.’면서 기망한 후, 이에 속아 피고인에게 투자하기 위해 공동재산인 건물을 매도하여 돈을 마련한 피해자들로부터 피해자 갑 명의 예금계좌에서 1억 원, 피해자 을 명의 예금계좌에서 4억 7,500만 원, 합계 5억 7,500만 원을 송금받아 이를 편취하였다는 이유로 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반(사기)죄로 기소된 사안에서, 각 피해자 명의의 예금계좌에 예치된 금전에 관한 권리는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 각 피해자에게 별도로 귀속되므로 민사상 권리 귀속관계의 면에서는 각 피해자가 피고인의 기망행위로 별도의 재산상 법익을 침해당하였다고 볼 수도 있으나, 포괄일죄를 판단하는 기준 중 하나인 피해법익의 동일성은 민사상 권리 귀속관계 외에 해당 사건에 나타난 다른 사정도 함께 고려하여 판단해야 하는데, 피고인의 피해자들에 대한 기망행위의 공통성, 기망행위에 이르게 된 경위, 재산 교부에 관한 의사결정의 공통성, 재산의 형성·유지 과정, 재산 교부의 목적 및 방법, 기망행위 이후의 정황 등 모든 사정을 고려하여 보면, 피해자들에 대한 사기죄의 피해법익이 동일하다고 평가될 수 있어 이들에 대한 사기죄가 포괄일죄를 구성한다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(2012. 2. 10. 법률 제11304호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1항, 형법 제37조, 제347조 [2] 구 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(2012. 2. 10. 법률 제11304호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1항, 형법 제37조, 제347조
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