CONTENTS
- 1. Crime of Fraud, What Were the Detailed Circumstances?
- - Statutes and Precedents Related to the Crime of Fraud
- 2. Crime of Fraud, What Was the Court's Determination?
- 3. Crime of Fraud, What Is a Precedent Worth Referring To?
- 4. Crime of Fraud, What Was Daeryun's Strategy?
1. Crime of Fraud, What Were the Detailed Circumstances?
The defendant in this case was a pastor.
When the victim, A, consulted the defendant about the fact that her husband was in the terminal stage of cancer, the defendant said, "I am a pastor, and people who have received prayers from me to prolong their lives have been completely cured of cancer."
He then proposed, "If you pay money and receive prayers from me to prolong life, your husband's cancer will be cured, and if you undergo a spiritual cleansing, his life will be extended by thirty years. Would you like me to pray?"
A, who was in a desperate and anxious state because of her husband's illness, paid a total of 31 million won under the names of prayer fees and offerings after the defendant told her that he also saw signs of childhood cancer in her granddaughter.
However, her husband's condition showed no sign of improvement at all, and A asked the defendant to return the 20 million won in offerings.
The defendant reportedly refused to return it, saying it was "the last means of saving your husband, who is dying."
It was revealed that the defendant, who had thus obtained the money from A by deception, used most of the money to repay his own loan debt, and he was accordingly brought to trial on charges of the crime of fraud.
Statutes and Precedents Related to the Crime of Fraud
🔗The crime of fraud is defined in Article 347 of the Criminal Act.
▣ Article 347 of the Criminal Act (Fraud) (1) A person who obtains the delivery of property or acquires a pecuniary advantage by deceiving another shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won. (2) The preceding paragraph shall also apply where, by the method set forth in the preceding paragraph, a third party is caused to obtain the delivery of property or to acquire a pecuniary advantage. |
▣ Related Supreme Court Precedent
The intent to defraud, which is an element of the crime of fraud, can only be determined, where the defendant does not confess, by comprehensively considering objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial standing and environment before and after the offense, the content of the offense, and the feasibility and process of performing the act that was the subject of the deception. And where the defendant notifies the victim of misfortune or promises a particular outcome concerning fortune and adversity and receives payment under the name of a prayer fee or the like, if it exceeds the limits permissible as a traditional custom or a religious act, it constitutes the crime of fraud.
- Supreme Court, Decision of November 9, 2017, 2016 Do 12460
2. Crime of Fraud, What Was the Court's Determination?
At trial, the defendant argued, "In the course of preaching faith in God, I prayed in response to the victim's earnest desire to save her husband, and because I myself firmly believe that 'God grants everything when you pray to Him,' I did not deceive the victim."
The court, however, entered a conviction against the defendant.
The court determined that "the defendant, in fact having no ability to cure a person's illness through prayer or to ward off a person's fortune and adversity, obtained the money by deception by exploiting the psychology of the victim, who was worried about the health and well-being of her ailing husband."
It also explained, "Preaching that offerings are connected to fortune and adversity cannot be regarded as falling within the scope of an ordinary religious act, the defendant committed fraud by deceiving a desperate and anxious victim, and, considering the circumstances and methods involved, his culpability is by no means light."
3. Crime of Fraud, What Is a Precedent Worth Referring To?
In connection with the crime of fraud, we will introduce a similar precedent in which a shaman was found not guilty even though a gut ritual produced no particular effect afterward. [Seoul Central District Court, 2016 No 485]
|
The court, however, held that "in light of B's mental state at the time and her trust in and dependence on the shaman C's spiritual abilities, it is difficult to find that C obtained the money by deception by deceiving B under the guise of a shamanic act," and found C not guilty.
It added, "For the crime of fraud to be established in connection with a shamanic act such as a gut ritual, the practitioner must have no genuine intent to perform the shamanic act and not believe in its effect either, yet pretend as if it were effective and deceive the other party to obtain an unlawful benefit, or must, for the purpose of acquiring a pecuniary advantage beyond the ordinary scope, actively deceive the requesting party by pretending to perform a shamanic act."
4. Crime of Fraud, What Was Daeryun's Strategy?
In connection with the crime of fraud, we have analyzed a District Court judgment that entered a conviction against a pastor who deceived a victim and obtained property under the name of prayer fees.
As shown by the additional precedent introduced above, the crime of fraud is not established in the case of "receiving a payment at a level permissible as an ordinary religious act,"
but it can be seen that the crime of fraud is established where a person, absent any particularly desperate or special problem, deceives another into believing that something bad will happen unless they receive that person's help and thereby receives a large sum of money.
Daeryun Law Firm LLP operates a 🔗Criminal Group and actively assists clients who have suffered fraud in seeking compensation for their losses.
In a case of fraud, obtaining legal assistance from an attorney experienced in such matters can be important for proving one's losses, so if you need help, you are welcome to visit Daeryun at any time.
