Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Fraud crime-group proceeds forfeitable although obtained from the victims
Supreme Court, June 26, 2025, 2025Do6485 (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: 범죄수익은닉의규제및처벌등에관한법률위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where property arising from the organisation and activity of a criminal group aimed at executing fraud, or property derived from it, is criminal proceeds related to the offence under Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds and Others, may it be forfeited under Article 8(1)(iii) of the same Act although it is property obtained from the victims of the fraud that forms the group's concrete activities?
Holding
Yes. Property arising from the organisation and activity of a criminal group aimed at executing fraud may be forfeited under Article 2(i)(a) and (d) and Article 8(1)(i) of the Act, and where that property or property derived from it is criminal proceeds related to the offence under Article 3, it may also be forfeited under Article 8(1)(iii). Article 8(3) bars forfeiture only where the property was obtained from the victim of an offence concerning property, and does not reach a case in which separate offences such as the organisation and activity of a criminal group also infringed a distinct legal interest of their own. The seized cash of KRW 2,845,450,000 was obtained by the defendant's son-in-law through the criminal group he organised and joined to commit fraud and was concealed by the defendant, so it is criminal proceeds related to the Article 3 offence and is subject to forfeiture; even though that forfeiture is discretionary, the court below had to decide, on that premise, whether to order it.
Points at issue, verbatim
사기 범행의 실행을 목적으로 한 범죄단체조직 및 활동에 의하여 생긴 재산이나 여기서 유래한 재산 등이 범죄수익은닉의 규제 및 처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조의 범죄행위에 관계된 범죄수익 등에 해당하는 경우, 해당 범죄단체의 구체적 활동 내용인 사기 범행의 피해자로부터 취득한 재산에 해당하더라도 같은 법 제8조 제1항 제3호에 의하여 몰수할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether property generated by the organization and activities of a criminal group aimed at committing fraud, or property derived therefrom, etc., which falls under criminal proceeds, etc. related to criminal acts under Article 3 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, may be confiscated pursuant to Article 8, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the same Act even where it is property acquired from the victim of the fraud that constitutes the specific activity of the criminal group (affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
사기 범행의 실행을 목적으로 한 범죄단체조직 및 활동에 의하여 생긴 재산은 범죄수익은닉규제법 제2조 제1호 (가)목, (라)목, 제8조 제1항 제1호에 의하여 몰수할 수 있고
Unofficial English translation
Property generated by the organization and activities of a criminal group aimed at committing fraud may be confiscated pursuant to Article 2, subparagraph 1 (a) and (d) and Article 8, paragraph (1), subparagraph 1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and
Factors
- 사기 범행의 실행을 목적으로 한 범죄단체조직 및 활동에 의하여 생긴 재산이나 여기서 유래한 재산 등이
- 범죄수익은닉의 규제 및 처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조의 범죄행위에 관계된 범죄수익 등에 해당하는 경우
- 해당 범죄단체의 구체적 활동 내용인 사기 범행의 피해자로부터 취득한 재산에 해당하더라도
Unofficial English translation
• Property generated by the organization and activities of a criminal group aimed at committing fraud, or property derived therefrom, etc.
• Where such property, etc. falls under criminal proceeds, etc. related to criminal acts under Article 3 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment
• Even where it is property acquired from the victim of the fraud that constitutes the specific activity of the criminal group,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 1. 29. 선고 2014도13446 판결, 대법원 2017. 10. 26. 선고 2017도8600 판결(공2017하, 2232)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2014Do13446 decided January 29, 2015; Supreme Court Decision 2017Do8600 decided October 26, 2017 (Gong 2017 Ha, 2232)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2015. 1. 29. 선고 2014도13446 판결, 대법원 2017. 10. 26. 선고 2017도8600 판결(공2017하, 2232) / [2] 대법원 2005. 10. 28. 선고 2005도5822 판결(공2005하, 1912)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where forfeiture under the Act is discretionary, on what grounds may a court find the seized property subject to forfeiture yet decline to order it?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on whether to order forfeiture of the seized cash will show how the discretionary forfeiture is exercised. A change in the son-in-law's fraud conviction, a later decision confining Article 8(3) to cases with no separate infringed legal interest, or an amendment to Articles 2, 3 or 8 of the Act would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 16 April 2025 (2025No347), found the defendant guilty of concealing criminal proceeds, but held that the seized cash of KRW 2,845,450,000 that he had held was criminal victim property under Article 8(3) of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds and Others, and therefore forfeitable under no provision of that Act. It left unchanged the first-instance judgment, which had not ordered forfeiture of the cash.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this misapprehended the law on forfeiture under Article 8 of the Act and left the necessary hearing undone, with an effect on the judgment, and accepted the prosecution's appeal ground. The seized cash was property the defendant's son-in-law obtained by organising a criminal group to commit fraud and taking part in it, and was criminal proceeds related to the offence under Article 3 that the defendant concealed, so it is subject to forfeiture under the Act; because the appellate judgment ordered no forfeiture or collection, no such portion could be identified and reversed alone, and the whole conviction part was reversed and the case remanded for retrial.
Distinguishing conditions
- Property that did not arise from the organisation and activity of a criminal group aimed at executing fraud, or that is not derived from it.
- Property obtained from the victim of an offence concerning property where no separate offence, such as the organisation or activity of a criminal group, also infringed a distinct legal interest, so that Article 8(3) remains applicable.
- An appellate judgment that did order forfeiture or collection, where the ground for reversal concerns only that portion, since that portion alone may be reversed.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the three points the Court named: whether the property arose from the fraud group's organisation and activity, whether it is criminal proceeds related to the Article 3 concealment offence, and whether separate legal interests were infringed alongside the offence concerning property, since Article 8(3) turns on that last point. Then look at the structure of the judgment below: where an appellate judgment ordered forfeiture or collection and the ground for reversal concerns only that portion, the Supreme Court may reverse only that portion; where the appellate court ordered no forfeiture or collection, the whole conviction part must be reversed. On remand the court must decide, on the premise that the cash is subject to forfeiture, whether to order the discretionary forfeiture, so collect what bears on that choice, including that the money is criminal victim property.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 사기 범행의 실행을 목적으로 한 범죄단체조직 및 활동에 의하여 생긴 재산이나 여기서 유래한 재산 등이 범죄수익은닉의 규제 및 처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조의 범죄행위에 관계된 범죄수익 등에 해당하는 경우, 해당 범죄단체의 구체적 활동 내용인 사기 범행의 피해자로부터 취득한 재산에 해당하더라도 같은 법 제8조 제1항 제3호에 의하여 몰수할 수 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 주형과 몰수 또는 추징을 선고한 항소심판결 중 몰수 또는 추징 부분에 관해서만 파기사유가 있을 경우, 상고심의 파기 범위 / 몰수나 추징을 선고하지 아니하였음을 이유로 항소심판결을 파기하는 경우, 상고심의 파기 범위
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether property generated by the organization and activities of a criminal group aimed at committing fraud, or property derived therefrom, etc., which falls under criminal proceeds, etc. related to criminal acts under Article 3 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, may be confiscated pursuant to Article 8, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the same Act even where it is property acquired from the victim of the fraud that constitutes the specific activity of the criminal group (affirmative) / [2] Where grounds for reversal exist only with respect to the part concerning confiscation or additional collection in the judgment of the appellate court that pronounced the principal punishment together with confiscation or additional collection, the scope of reversal by the Supreme Court / Where the judgment of the appellate court is reversed on the ground that it failed to pronounce confiscation or additional collection, the scope of reversal by the Supreme Court
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
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 범죄수익은닉의 규제 및 처벌 등에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호, 제3조, 제8조 제1항, 제3항 [2] 형사소송법 제391조
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