Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Deception of a person as an element of fraud in an automated card loan
Supreme Court, Mar. 27, 2025, 2024Do18441 (judgment)
Case name: 사기[카드론 대출에서 사기죄의 기망행위 성립 여부가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a borrower with no intention or ability to repay entered information into a card company's smartphone application and the loan was processed automatically by computer, was the conduct a fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act although no employee of the card company was deceived?
Holding
No. The deception required for fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act means causing a person to fall into a mistake, so conduct that does not involve deceiving a person cannot be punished as fraud. The Court held that the loan here was handled automatically on the computer after the defendant entered the required fields, with no circumstances showing that an employee checked the application or transferred the funds, so the defendant deceived no person.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
형법 제347조 사기죄의 성립요건인 기망행위는 사람으로 하여금 착오를 일으키게 하는 것을 말한다. 따라서 사람에 대한 기망행위를 수반하지 않는 경우 사기죄로 처벌할 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
The act of deception, which is a requirement for the constitution of the offense of fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act, means causing a person to fall into error. Accordingly, where the act does not involve deception of a person, one cannot be punished for the offense of fraud.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
형법 제347조 사기죄의 성립요건인 기망행위는 사람으로 하여금 착오를 일으키게 하는 것을 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
The act of deception, which is a requirement for the constitution of the offense of fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act, means causing a person to fall into error.
Factors
- 형법 제347조 사기죄의 성립요건인 기망행위는 사람으로 하여금 착오를 일으키게 하는 것을 말한다
- 사람에 대한 기망행위를 수반하지 않는 경우 사기죄로 처벌할 수 없다
- 대출이 전산상 자동적으로 처리되어 송금받을 계좌로 대출금이 송금되었고
- 대출신청을 처리하는 일련의 과정에 카드회사들의 직원이 대출신청을 확인하거나 대출금을 송금하는 등으로 개입하였다고 인정할 만한 사정이 없으므로
- 피고인이 대출을 받는 과정에서 카드회사들의 직원 등 사람을 기망하였다고 볼 수 없는 점에 비추어
Unofficial English translation
• The act of deception, which is a requirement for the constitution of the offense of fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act, means causing a person to fall into error
• Where the act does not involve deception of a person, one cannot be punished for the offense of fraud
• The loan was processed automatically through the computer system and the loan money was remitted to the account designated to receive it, and
• There are no circumstances recognized as showing that employees of the card companies intervened in the series of processes handling the loan application, such as by confirming the loan application or remitting the loan money, and therefore
• In light of the fact that the defendant cannot be regarded as having deceived any person, such as employees of the card companies, in the course of receiving the loan
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2020. 2. 27. 선고 2019도14960 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2019Do14960 decided February 27, 2020
Decisions referred to
[1] 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
If the same conduct is charged under a provision dealing with property obtained through a computerised system, does the absence of a deceived person still defeat the charge?
A later decision applying or varying this rule to other automated lending channels, such as a bank's internet or phone banking system, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 347 of the Criminal Act on the meaning of the deception element.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Both readings record that the judgment is silent on the burden of proof, so the values match; the difference lies only in whether the factual finding of no deception is framed as a burden-based conclusion.
피고인의 행위는 사람에 대한 기망행위를 수반하지 않아 사기죄에 해당하지 않는다는 이유로Raw 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 Southern District Court, in its judgment of 7 November 2024 (2023No1871), kept intact the first-instance judgment that convicted the defendant. On the indictment, the defendant applied on 3 June 2022 through a card company's application for a card loan of KRW 18,500,000 at an annual rate of 18.5% over 27 months, having arranged to borrow KRW 136,100,000 from several card companies at the same time, owing about KRW 200 million to business counterparties and usurers and nearly KRW 100 million to acquaintances, with the monthly principal and interest exceeding the defendant's monthly income; the defendant received KRW 34,500,000 in two transfers in all and so deceived the card companies and obtained the money.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the deception element of Article 347 of the Criminal Act means causing a person to fall into a mistake, so conduct without the deception of a person is not fraud. On the record, the loan had been processed automatically on the computer once the defendant entered fields such as the purpose of the funds, assets held, income, debts, fixed outgoings and credit score, and nothing showed that an employee checked the application or transferred the money. The court below had therefore misread the law on the deception element in a way that affected the judgment, and the whole judgment was reversed and remanded for retrial.
Distinguishing conditions
- A loan application in which an employee of the card company checked the application, decided on it or transferred the loan proceeds, since the Court relied on the absence of any such intervention.
- A case in which the deception of a person is alleged apart from the automated processing, for instance a call in which the borrower gave false information to an employee.
- A charge not under Article 347 of the Criminal Act but under another provision, since the decision answered only the element of deception in fraud.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, read the first-instance file for any trace of human handling in the loan: a telephone verification, a manual review, a decision to release the funds. Then confirm the version of Article 347 of the Criminal Act relied on, since the Court cited Article 347 and Article 347(1) as referred provisions, and note that the Court decided nothing about liability under any other offence.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 사기죄의 성립요건인 ‘기망행위’의 의미 / 사람에 대한 기망행위를 수반하지 않는 경우, 사기죄로 처벌할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 피고인이 정상적으로 대출금을 반환할 의사나 능력이 없음에도 휴대전화에 설치된 카드회사의 애플리케이션을 통해 카드론 대출을 신청하여 대출금을 자신의 계좌로 송금받는 방법으로 총 2회에 걸쳐 카드회사들을 기망하여 카드회사들로부터 대출금을 편취하였다는 공소사실로 기소된 사안에서, 피고인의 행위는 사람에 대한 기망행위를 수반하지 않아 사기죄에 해당하지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of the "act of deception," a requirement for the constitution of the offense of fraud / Whether a person may be punished for the offense of fraud in a case where the act does not involve deception of a person (negative) [2] In a case where the defendant was prosecuted on the facts charged that, despite having neither the intention nor the ability to repay the loan money normally, the defendant applied for a card loan through a card company's application installed on a mobile phone and had the loan money remitted to the defendant's own account, thereby deceiving the card companies on a total of two occasions and obtaining by fraud the loan money from the card companies, a case in which it was held that the defendant's acts did not involve deception of a person and therefore did not constitute the offense of fraud
Summary of the holding
[1] 형법 제347조 사기죄의 성립요건인 기망행위는 사람으로 하여금 착오를 일으키게 하는 것을 말한다. 따라서 사람에 대한 기망행위를 수반하지 않는 경우 사기죄로 처벌할 수 없다. [2] 피고인이 정상적으로 대출금을 반환할 의사나 능력이 없음에도 휴대전화에 설치된 카드회사의 애플리케이션을 통해 카드론 대출을 신청하여 대출금을 자신의 계좌로 송금받는 방법으로 총 2회에 걸쳐 카드회사들을 기망하여 카드회사들로부터 합계 34,500,000원을 편취하였다는 공소사실로 기소된 사안에서, 피고인이 카드회사들로부터 카드론 대출을 받기 위하여 휴대전화에 설치된 카드회사들의 애플리케이션을 이용하여 자금용도, 보유자산, 연소득정보, 부채정보, 연소득 대비 고정 지출, 신용점수 등을 입력한 데 따라 대출이 전산상 자동적으로 처리되어 송금받을 계좌로 대출금이 송금되었고, 대출신청을 처리하는 일련의 과정에 카드회사들의 직원이 대출신청을 확인하거나 대출금을 송금하는 등으로 개입하였다고 인정할 만한 사정이 없으므로, 피고인이 대출을 받는 과정에서 카드회사들의 직원 등 사람을 기망하였다고 볼 수 없는 점에 비추어, 피고인의 행위는 사람에 대한 기망행위를 수반하지 않아 사기죄에 해당하지 않는다는 이유로, 이와 달리 보아 공소사실을 유죄로 인정한 원심의 판단에 사기죄에서 기망행위에 관한 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제347조 [2] 형법 제347조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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