Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Intent to move property abroad when the funds were meant to return to Korea at once
Supreme Court, Sept. 25, 2025, 2025Do8824 (judgment)
Case name: 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)·사기·범죄수익은닉의규제및처벌등에관한법률위반·외국환거래법위반·특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(재산국외도피)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does carrying cash abroad with no plan to use it there, in order to buy tether (USDT) in Hong Kong and transfer it at once to a domestic virtual asset exchange account, amount to the crime of moving property abroad under Article 4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes?
Holding
No. The offence requires an intention to move domestic property abroad or to hide abroad property that must be brought into the country, so that the property is placed beyond the regulation and control of Korean law, and the acts must create a risk of outflow of the property of the Republic of Korea or its nationals. Funds remitted abroad with no plan to use them there, with the aim of bringing them straight back into the country, either as they are or exchanged for a substitute of equal or similar value, do not carry that intention.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
처음부터 해외에서의 사용을 예정하지 않고 즉시 국내에 반입할 목적으로 자금을 해외 송금하였다면, 국내재산을 해외로 이동하여 임의로 지배·관리한다는 재산도피의 고의가 있었다고 볼 수 없다. 이는 처음부터 해외에서의 사용을 예정하지 않고 자금을 그와 같거나 유사한 재산적 가치를 가지는 대체물로 바꾸어 즉시 국내에 반입할 목적으로 해외 송금한 경우에도 마찬가지로 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
If funds were remitted abroad from the outset without any intention to use them overseas and with the purpose of bringing them back into the country immediately, it cannot be regarded that there was an intent to evade property by moving domestic property abroad and freely controlling and managing it. The same must be regarded as applying where the funds were remitted abroad from the outset without any intention to use them overseas and with the purpose of converting them into a substitute having the same or a similar property value and bringing them back into the country immediately.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
그러한 행위에 이르게 된 동기, 행위의 방법 또는 수단이 은밀하고 탈법적인 것인지 여부, 행위 이후 행위자가 취한 조치 등 여러 사정을 두루 참작하여 엄격하고 신중하게 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
such circumstances as the motive that led to such act, whether the method or means of the act was secretive and unlawful, and the measures taken by the actor after the act, must be considered comprehensively and judged strictly and carefully.
Factors
- 당시 행위자가 처하였던 경제적 사정 또는 그 행위를 통하여 추구하고자 한 경제적 이익의 내용 등 그러한 행위에 이르게 된 동기
- 행위의 방법 또는 수단이 은밀하고 탈법적인 것인지 여부
- 행위 이후 행위자가 취한 조치
Unofficial English translation
• The motive that led to such act, such as the economic circumstances in which the actor was placed at the time or the content of the economic benefit sought to be obtained through that act
• Whether the method or means of the act was secretive and unlawful
• The measures taken by the actor after the act
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2005. 4. 29. 선고 2002도7262 판결(공2005상, 871), 대법원 2010. 9. 9. 선고 2007도3681 판결(공2010하, 1937), 대법원 2016. 10. 13. 선고 2016도8130 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7262 decided April 29, 2005 (Gong 2005 Sang, 871), Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3681 decided September 9, 2010 (Gong 2010 Ha, 1937), Supreme Court Decision 2016Do8130 decided October 13, 2016
Decisions referred to
대법원 2005. 4. 29. 선고 2002도7262 판결(공2005상, 871), 대법원 2010. 9. 9. 선고 2007도3681 판결(공2010하, 1937), 대법원 2016. 10. 13. 선고 2016도8130 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the substitute purchased abroad is not brought back into the country within a short time, at what point does an intended re-importation cease to exclude the intent to move property abroad?
The written judgment of the Supreme Court, once published in an official reporting series, should be read with this entry, since the reasons may then be fuller. Any amendment to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes, or a later decision that qualifies the rule on funds sent home for immediate re-importation, would also 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) · 2026-10-24
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 Suwon High Court, in its judgment of 21 May 2025 (2024No1416), reversed the first-instance conviction on the charge of moving property abroad under Article 4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes and entered a not-guilty verdict. It held that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant, who carried cash abroad to buy tether (USDT) in Hong Kong for transfer to the accounts of non-party 1 or non-party 2 at the domestic virtual asset exchange, intended to move the cash abroad and exercise control over it. The convictions on the other charges stood.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in either appeal. On the prosecution's appeal, it held that the court below had not breached the rules of logic and experience, departed from the free evaluation of evidence, or misstated the law on the elements of the offence. On the defendant's appeal against the remaining convictions, it likewise found no misstatement of the law on joint principals or intent, and dismissed both appeals unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- Funds sent abroad with a plan to use them abroad, so that the intention to move property beyond Korean control is present.
- A case in which the economic circumstances of the actor, the secrecy or unlawful character of the means, or the measures taken afterwards, weighed strictly and carefully, point to an intention to keep the property abroad.
- Property that was never to be brought back into the country, since the Court's exception turns on the aim of immediate domestic re-importation.
Record verification notes
Trace what the defendant meant to do with the cash at the moment it was carried abroad, and gather evidence of the economic circumstances, the means used, and every step taken after that, since the Court requires all of them to be weighed strictly and carefully. Then separate the count of moving property abroad from the counts that were convicted, and check which of the decisions referred to, Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7262, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3681 and Supreme Court Decision 2016Do8130, supports the point relied on.
From the official text
Points at issue
특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제4조 제1항 재산국외도피죄의 성립요건 / 어떠한 행위가 같은 법 제4조의 ‘재산국외도피’에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 / 처음부터 해외에서의 사용을 예정하지 않고 즉시 국내에 반입할 목적으로 자금을 해외 송금한 경우, 재산국외도피의 고의 유무(소극) 및 이는 처음부터 해외에서의 사용을 예정하지 않고 자금을 그와 같거나 유사한 재산적 가치를 가지는 대체물로 바꾸어 즉시 국내에 반입할 목적으로 해외 송금한 경우에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Requirements for establishing the crime of transferring property abroad under Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes / The criteria for determining whether a certain act constitutes a 'transfer of property abroad' under Article 4 of the same Act / Whether, where funds were remitted abroad from the outset without any intention to use them overseas and with the purpose of bringing them back into the country immediately, there is no intent (negative) to transfer property abroad, and whether the same applies where the funds were remitted abroad from the outset without any intention to use them overseas and with the purpose of converting them into a substitute having the same or a similar property value and bringing them back into the country immediately (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘특정경제범죄법’이라 한다) 제4조 제1항의 재산국외도피죄는, 자신의 행위가 법령을 위반하여 국내재산을 해외로 이동하거나 국내로 반입하여야 할 재산을 국외에서 은닉한다는 인식과, 그 행위가 재산을 대한민국의 법률과 제도에 의한 규율과 관리를 받지 않고 자신이 해외에서 임의로 소비, 축적, 은닉 등 지배·관리할 수 있는 상태에 두는 행위라는 인식을 가지고, 국내재산을 해외로 이동하거나 국내로 반입하여야 할 재산을 국외에서 은닉 또는 처분하여 대한민국 또는 대한민국 국민의 재산이 유출될 위험이 있는 상태를 발생하게 함으로써 성립한다. 어떠한 행위가 특정경제범죄법 제4조의 재산국외도피에 해당하는지를 판단함에 있어서는 당시 행위자가 처하였던 경제적 사정 또는 그 행위를 통하여 추구하고자 한 경제적 이익의 내용 등 그러한 행위에 이르게 된 동기, 행위의 방법 또는 수단이 은밀하고 탈법적인 것인지 여부, 행위 이후 행위자가 취한 조치 등 여러 사정을 두루 참작하여 엄격하고 신중하게 판단하여야 한다. 처음부터 해외에서의 사용을 예정하지 않고 즉시 국내에 반입할 목적으로 자금을 해외 송금하였다면, 국내재산을 해외로 이동하여 임의로 지배·관리한다는 재산도피의 고의가 있었다고 볼 수 없다. 이는 처음부터 해외에서의 사용을 예정하지 않고 자금을 그와 같거나 유사한 재산적 가치를 가지는 대체물로 바꾸어 즉시 국내에 반입할 목적으로 해외 송금한 경우에도 마찬가지로 보아야 한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제4조 제1항, 형법 제13조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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