Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Bank-account proceeds are not 'things' under Article 48
Supreme Court, July 16, 2025, 2025Do4876 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 사문서위조·위조사문서행사·전기통신사업법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where defendants received mobile phone activation fees and internet account sales proceeds by bank transfer, was that money a 'thing' arising from or acquired by the offence under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, so that its value could be collected, and what must the court below examine before ordering collection?
Holding
It was not. Money received by transfer into a bank account gives the defendants only a deposit claim against the bank; that claim may be crime proceeds under the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of the Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, but it is not a 'thing' under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, whose concept follows Article 98 of the Civil Act. Confiscation attaches to an identified thing and collection presupposes that confiscation was possible, so where the property arising from the offence is not identified, neither confiscation nor collection of its value is available.
Points at issue, verbatim
위 수익금은 형법 제48조 제1항의 ‘물건’이라고 보기 어려워 형법상 추징 대상에 해당하지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
the proceeds in question cannot be regarded as a 'thing' under Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act and thus do not constitute an object of additional collection under the Criminal Act
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인들에 대한 각 추징 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산지방법원에 환송한다. 피고인들의 나머지 상고를 각 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portions of the judgment of the court below concerning the additional collection against the defendants are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan District Court. The defendants' remaining appeals are each dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
몰수는 특정된 물건에 대한 것이고 추징은 본래 몰수할 수 있었음을 전제로 하는 것임에 비추어, 범죄행위로 인하여 생겼거나 취득한 물건이 특정되지 않는다면 이를 몰수할 수 없고 그 가액을 추징할 수도 없다
Unofficial English translation
Given that confiscation concerns an identified thing and that additional collection presupposes that the thing could originally have been confiscated, if the thing that came into existence or was acquired by a criminal act is not identified, it cannot be confiscated and its value cannot be subject to additional collection either
Factors
- 범죄행위로 인하여 생겼거나 취득한 물건이 특정되지 않는 경우
- 피고인들이 공모하여 외국인 개인정보 유통 브로커로부터 매입한 외국인등록증 이미지 파일로 ‘선불 이동전화 가입신청서’를 위조·행사하여 선불 이동전화를 개통하고
- 은행 계좌로 송금·이체 받은
- 형법 제48조 제1항의 ‘물건’이라고 보기 어려워
Unofficial English translation
• Where the thing that came into existence or was acquired by a criminal act is not identified
• The defendants conspired to forge and use a 'prepaid mobile phone subscription application form' by means of image files of alien registration cards purchased from a broker trading in foreigners' personal information, thereby opening prepaid mobile phones, and
• had the same remitted and transferred to bank accounts
• cannot be regarded as a 'thing' under Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1996. 5. 8. 선고 96도221 판결(공1996하, 1933)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 96Do221 decided May 8, 1996 (Gong 1996 Ha, 1933)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1996. 5. 8. 선고 96도221 판결(공1996하, 1933), 대법원 2021. 10. 14. 선고 2021도7168 판결(공2021하, 2224)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the fees and proceeds had been withdrawn as cash and could be traced as a specific fund, would they be a 'thing' that Article 48 allows to be confiscated or its value collected?
The remand judgment from the Busan District Court, once it finds what each defendant acquired and in what form, will show how the identification requirement works in practice. Any amendment to Article 48 of the Criminal Act or to Articles 2 and 8 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of the Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, and any later decision treating deposit claims differently, would require this entry to be read again.
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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the fees and proceeds had been withdrawn as cash and could be traced as a specific fund, would they be a 'thing' that Article 48 allows to be confiscated or its value collected?” vs Independent “Could these proceeds be confiscated or their equivalent value collected under the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment?”
The primary reading asks whether cash withdrawn and traceable would count as a thing, while the independent reading asks whether the Criminal Proceeds Concealment Act permits confiscation or collection.
위 수익금은 형법 제48조 제1항의 ‘물건’이라고 보기 어려워 형법상 추징 대상에 해당하지 않는다고 한 사례Raw 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 Busan District Court, in its judgment of 13 March 2025 (2024No3906), found the defendants guilty of forging and using 34,850 prepaid mobile phone subscription forms in the names of 8,534 foreign nationals between about 21 June 2021 and 12 March 2024, and of selling internet site accounts opened in those names, contrary to the Telecommunications Business Act. Applying Article 48(2) and (1)(ii) of the Criminal Act, it ordered the value of the mobile phone activation fees of KRW 297,651,162 and the internet account sales proceeds of KRW 615,746,151 collected from the defendants: KRW 389,448,656 each from Defendants 1 and 2, being the remainder after the sums paid as wages to Defendants 3 and 4, KRW 75,000,000 from Defendant 3 and KRW 59,500,000 from Defendant 4.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that Article 48 of the Criminal Act confines confiscation to 'things', a category distinct from the crime proceeds that Articles 2 and 8 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of the Concealment of Criminal Proceeds let be confiscated and from the value of a property benefit under Article 357 of the Criminal Act. Because the defendants received the fees and proceeds into bank accounts and acquired only deposit claims, the amounts were not 'things' under Article 48(1) and fell outside collection under Article 48(1)(ii) and (2). The court below had not examined who acquired what in what manner during the offence period, or whether the fees and proceeds were objects of confiscation under Article 48(1), so it misapprehended the law on confiscation and collection and failed to hold the necessary hearing, with an error affecting the judgment; its orders on collection were reversed and the case remanded, while the defendants' remaining appeal grounds, resting on the selection and weight of evidence, were not lawful grounds under Article 383(iv) of the Criminal Procedure Act and were dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the money taken for the offence still exists as identified cash or as another thing capable of being managed, so that a 'thing' under Article 48(1) can be pointed out.
- A claim for the value of a property benefit obtained by the offence under Article 357 of the Criminal Act, which is not limited to things.
- Confiscation of crime proceeds under Articles 2 and 8 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of the Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, where the target is defined as crime proceeds rather than as a thing.
Record verification notes
Identify, count by count, what each defendant actually received and in what form, and whether any of it survives as an identified thing, since the Court remanded for want of that examination. Then check whether the charge and the record support collection under Article 357 of the Criminal Act or confiscation under the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of the Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, and note that where the sentence is below ten years, arguments on the selection and weight of evidence are not lawful grounds of appeal under Article 383(iv) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 형법 제48조에서 몰수의 대상으로 규정한 ‘물건’의 의미 / 범죄행위로 인하여 생겼거나 취득한 물건이 특정되지 않는 경우, 이를 몰수하거나 그 가액을 추징할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 피고인들이 공모하여 외국인 개인정보 유통 브로커로부터 매입한 외국인등록증 이미지 파일로 ‘선불 이동전화 가입신청서’를 위조·행사하여 선불 이동전화를 개통하고, 개통한 회선 명의자의 정보를 이용하여 개설한 인터넷 사이트 계정을 판매하며, 휴대전화 개통수수료 및 인터넷 계정 판매수익을 은행 계좌로 송금·이체 받은 사안에서, 위 수익금은 형법 제48조 제1항의 ‘물건’이라고 보기 어려워 형법상 추징 대상에 해당하지 않는다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of the term 'thing' provided in Article 48 of the Criminal Act as an object of confiscation / Whether, where the thing that came into existence or was acquired by a criminal act is not identified, it may be confiscated or its value may be subject to additional collection (negative) [2] A case where, in circumstances in which the defendants conspired to forge and use a 'prepaid mobile phone subscription application form' by means of image files of alien registration cards purchased from a broker trading in foreigners' personal information, thereby opening prepaid mobile phones, sold accounts of internet sites opened by using the information of the subscribers of the opened lines, and had the mobile phone opening commissions and the proceeds from the sale of the internet accounts remitted and transferred to bank accounts, the proceeds in question cannot be regarded as a 'thing' under Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act and thus do not constitute an object of additional collection under the Criminal Act
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인들에 대한 각 추징 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산지방법원에 환송한다. 피고인들의 나머지 상고를 각 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portions of the judgment of the court below concerning the additional collection against the defendants are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Busan District Court. The defendants' remaining appeals are each dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제48조, 제357조, 범죄수익은닉의 규제 및 처벌 등에 관한 법률 제2조, 제8조, 민법 제98조 [2] 형법 제30조, 제48조, 제231조, 제234조, 전기통신사업법 제30조, 제97조 제7호
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