사기죄에서 ‘교부받는 행위’의 의미

Abstract

1. First of all, I intend to review the elements of fraud crime in Article 347 of criminal law and the meaning of ‘issuing act · issuing intention’(Ⅱ). I try to investigate the meanings of theories on why we use ‘act and intention of disposal’, which is not specified in the law, and what ‘issuing act · issuing intention’ means. In addition, I intend to analyze fraud related precedents of Supreme Court(Ⅲ). I am going to organize Supreme Court’s position of precedents from 1970s to February, 2017, and understand the tendency. Next, I will analyze majority opinions and minority opinions of the supreme court decision on fraud in February, 2017, which is the subject decision of this study(Ⅳ). I try to research from what perspectives the demonstration is done. I also consider the problems and improvement plans of the supreme court decision’s changing precedents. I will suggest an independent legislative change in the principles of safety, reliability and retroactive prohibition(Ⅴ). Lastly, I will consider the problems and improvement plans of Supreme Court sentencing’s sentences(Ⅵ). I will summarize the above contents at the conclusion(Ⅶ). 2. The supreme court decision, Supreme Court 2017. 2. 16. Decision 2016Do13362, changed the existing opinions. The following is the summary of the supreme court decision: “The disposal intention is enough if the deceived who is in the mistake recognizes what he or she is doing. It is not necessary to recognize the result of the act. The act of the deceived who sealed and signed on the disposal document can be considered as disposal act. Even though the deceived didn’t recognize the specific details or legal effects of the disposal result, or the document, he or she recognized the act of sealing and signing on the disposal document, so the disposal intention of the deceived is also acknowledged.”(the precedent that confirmed the theory of issuing intention necessity and the theory of issuing act recognition) 3. I agree with the conclusion of the majority opinion. The meaning of the Supreme Court decision is that the deceived(victim) needs issuing intention, and the issuing intention contents are enough with issuing act recognition(in the expression of academic field and precedents, the theory of disposal act recognition, issuing situation recognition, damage causing recognition). “The victim and 7 others fell into an error due to the defendant’s deceiving act, so the deceived sealed and signed on the written application for registration of the right to collateral security settings needed for the defendant to loan 100 million won by mistaking for a document for furnishing of security for 30 million won, and the deceived had financial damages. Therefore, the act of the victim is also considered as disposal act in the crime of fraud.” This arranges many controversies clearly. I think the crime of fraud should be legally interpreted from the perspective of a person who performs the act. If the deceiving recognizes the issuing act of the deceived(victim), the deliberation can be acknowledged by subjective elements of a crime. 4. I think many precedents about Supreme Court’s ‘disposal intention and disposal contents of fraud’ had problems. It shouldn’t be interpreted too strictly under the term of ‘swindling signature’. Writing ‘document’ in deception or being issued with ‘seal’ and ‘authentication certificate of one’s seal’ is totally different from simple ‘document related crime’. The criminal intention at the time of act is different, and the risk of the second act of infringing the rights is very high. If too strict interpretation is done in the objective elements of a crime because the issuing act of the deceived is too concentrated, the criminal law can’t defend law and order.