Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Whether the Amount of Gain from Fraud under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes Can Be Calculated When a Contingent Debt Is Concealed in a Comprehensive Transfer of a Corporation
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Apr. 25, 2024, 2023Do18971 (judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the entire business and assets of a corporation are transferred in a comprehensive transfer while a contingent debt to refund the purchase price of license plates is concealed, may the entire purchase price of the vehicles concerned be treated as the amount of gain under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes?
Holding
It may not. The amount obtained by fraud in the offense of fraud is in principle the entire sum of money delivered, but when Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is applied, the amount of gain must be calculated strictly and carefully, and if it cannot be specifically calculated, that Article cannot be applied. The Supreme Court held that the price per vehicle of 22 million won was a comprehensive valuation of the entirety of the subject of the transfer, and that the existence and scope of the obligation to return were also uncertain, so that the amount of gain could not be calculated.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 이익의 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없는 경우에는 재산상 이익의 가액을 기준으로 가중 처벌하는 특정경제범죄법 제3조를 적용할 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the value of that benefit cannot be specifically calculated, Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which imposes aggravated punishment on the basis of the value of a pecuniary benefit, cannot be applied.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Suwon High Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
편취한 재물이나 재산상 이익의 가액을 엄격하고 신중하게 산정함으로써
Unofficial English translation
by strictly and carefully calculating the value of the property or pecuniary benefit obtained by fraud,
Factors
- 기망으로 인한 금원 교부가 있으면 그 자체로써 피해자의 재산침해가 되어
- 편취한 재물이나 재산상 이익의 가액을 엄격하고 신중하게 산정함으로써
- 범죄와 형벌 사이에 적정한 균형이 이루어져야 한다는 죄형균형 원칙
- 그 이익의 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• where money is delivered as a result of deception, the victim's property is infringed thereby itself, and
• by strictly and carefully calculating the value of the property or pecuniary benefit obtained by fraud,
• the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment, which requires that a proper balance be struck between crime and punishment,
• where the value of that benefit cannot be specifically calculated,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 4. 19. 선고 2005도7288 전원합의체 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do7288 decided April 19, 2007
Decisions referred to
대법원 2007. 4. 19. 선고 2005도7288 전원합의체 판결(공2007상, 923), 대법원 2018. 4. 12. 선고 2017도21196 판결, 대법원 2020. 12. 10. 선고 2016도1104 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is excluded because the amount of gain cannot be calculated, how are the amount obtained by fraud under the simple offense of fraud and the scope of the establishment of the crime determined?
If the standard for the amount of gain under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is amended, or if a judgment is confirmed in which the court below, after remand, has again determined the amount of gain in this Case and the charge, this reading will be reviewed again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another AI model (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 5 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on the fourth axis (Form of the test), the fifth axis (Factors), and the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Because the original text sets out the general requirements of strict calculation of the amount of gain and of exclusion from application where calculation is impossible, the independent reading may read this as stating elements, while the first reading connects these requirements to the specific transfer case and may read it as applying the existing test to the facts.
그 이익의 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없는 경우에는 재산상 이익의 가액을 기준으로 가중 처벌하는 특정경제범죄법 제3조를 적용할 수 없다.Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “a delivery of money caused by deception itself constitutes an infringement of the victim's property / by strictly and carefully calculating the value of the property or pecuniary benefit obtained by fraud / the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment, which requires that an appropriate balance be struck between crime and punishment / where the value of that benefit cannot be specifically calculated” vs Independent “delivery of money caused by deception / the entire sum of money delivered / the value of the property or pecuniary benefit obtained by fraud being 500 million won or more, or 5 billion won or more / the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment, which requires that an appropriate balance be struck between crime and punishment / the principle of culpability, under which punishment is based on culpability and must be proportional to that culpability”
The delivery of money and the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment overlap, but the first reading takes strict calculation and the impossibility of calculation as the central factors, whereas the independent reading takes the entire sum delivered, the value standard, and the principle of culpability as the central factors.
그 이익의 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없는 경우에는 재산상 이익의 가액을 기준으로 가중 처벌하는 특정경제범죄법 제3조를 적용할 수 없다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is excluded because the amount of gain cannot be calculated, how are the amount obtained by fraud under the simple offense of fraud and the scope of the establishment of the crime determined?” vs Independent “What method of valuation and what materials are needed in order to recognize that the value of the pecuniary benefit can be specifically calculated?”
The first reading asks about the scope of the establishment of the simple offense of fraud after aggravated punishment is excluded, while the independent reading asks about the method of valuation and the materials needed to calculate the amount of gain.
그 이익의 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없는 경우에는 재산상 이익의 가액을 기준으로 가중 처벌하는 특정경제범죄법 제3조를 적용할 수 없다.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, had the victim company known of the contingent debt of returning the purchase price of the license plates for the 45 freight vehicles, it would not have contracted for those 45 vehicles at 22 million won per vehicle, that the amount obtained by fraud was 736 million won paid under the item of the purchase price for the 45 vehicles, and that whether the money was actually returned or the amount of loss was suffered amounted to no more than matters to be considered in sentencing, and therefore found the defendant guilty by applying Article 3 paragraph (1) subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this contract was a contract comprehensively transferring the entire business and assets of the company of Non-indicted 1, so that the 22 million won per vehicle was a comprehensive valuation of the entirety of the subject of the transfer, and that the existence and scope of the obligation to return the purchase price of the license plates were determined under individual agreements, and that, as the related lawsuit seeking return had been dismissed and the judgment had become final, the amount of gain could not be specifically calculated. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case on the ground of misapprehension of legal principles concerning the calculation of the amount of gain.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case of a sale directed only at individual items, where the correspondence between the deception and the delivery of the price is clear
- A case where the existence and amount of the concealed debt have been fixed by agreement or by judgment, so that the amount of gain can be specifically calculated
- A case where only the offense of fraud under the Criminal Act is at issue, not the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, so that value is not a constituent element
Record verification notes
Before asserting that the amount of gain cannot be calculated, it is necessary to check whether the subject matter of the contract is a comprehensive transfer or a sale of individual assets, and whether the conditions for the return of the concealed debt were set forth in an entrustment contract or the like.
From the official text
Points at issue
금원 편취를 내용으로 하는 사기죄에서 대가가 일부 지급된 경우, 그 편취액(=교부받은 금원 전부) 및 이는 사기로 인한 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 위반죄에서도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극) / 편취한 재물이나 재산상 이익의 가액을 기준으로 가중 처벌하는 같은 법 제3조의 적용을 전제로 편취한 재물이나 재산상 이익의 가액을 산정할 때 유의하여야 할 사항 / 이때 편취한 재산상 이익의 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없는 경우, 같은 법 제3조를 적용할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
In the offense of fraud consisting of obtaining money by fraud, where consideration has been paid in part, whether the amount obtained by fraud (= the entire sum of money delivered) is so regarded, and whether the same applies to the offense of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes arising from fraud (affirmative) / Matters to be kept in mind when calculating the value of the property or pecuniary benefit obtained by fraud, on the premise of applying Article 3 of the same Act, which imposes aggravated punishment based on the value of the property or pecuniary benefit obtained by fraud / Whether Article 3 of the same Act may be applied where, in such a case, the value of the pecuniary benefit obtained by fraud cannot be specifically calculated (negative)
Summary of the holding
금원 편취를 내용으로 하는 사기죄에 있어서는 기망으로 인한 금원 교부가 있으면 그 자체로써 피해자의 재산침해가 되어 바로 사기죄가 성립하고, 상당한 대가가 지급되었다거나 피해자의 전체 재산상에 손해가 없다 하여도 사기죄의 성립에는 영향이 없으므로 사기죄에 있어서 그 대가가 일부 지급된 경우에도 편취액은 피해자로부터 교부된 금원으로부터 그 대가를 공제한 차액이 아니라 교부받은 금원 전부이고, 이는 사기로 인한 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘특정경제범죄법’이라 한다) 위반죄에 있어서도 마찬가지다. 그러나 다른 한편으로, 사기로 인한 특정경제범죄법 위반죄는 편취한 재물이나 재산상 이익의 가액이 5억 원 이상 또는 50억 원 이상인 것이 범죄구성요건의 일부로 되어 있고 가액에 따라 그 죄에 대한 형벌도 가중되어 있으므로, 이를 적용할 때에는 편취한 재물이나 재산상 이익의 가액을 엄격하고 신중하게 산정함으로써 범죄와 형벌 사이에 적정한 균형이 이루어져야 한다는 죄형균형 원칙이나 형벌은 책임에 기초하고 그 책임에 비례하여야 한다는 책임주의 원칙이 훼손되지 않도록 유의하여야 한다. 그리고 그 이익의 가액을 구체적으로 산정할 수 없는 경우에는 재산상 이익의 가액을 기준으로 가중 처벌하는 특정경제범죄법 제3조를 적용할 수 없다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Suwon High Court.
Provisions referred to
형법 제347조, 특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조
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