http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
통신사기피해환급법 제15조의2 제1항에서 말하는 ‘정보 또는 명령의 입력행위’의 의미
고제성 사법발전재단 2016 사법 Vol.1 No.36
The Special Act on Refund of Amount of Damage Caused by Telecommunications Bank Fraud (amended by Act No. 12384, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “Special Act”) inserted a new clause on “crimes involving telecommunications-based financial fraud” under Article 15-2 (Penal Provision) in order to punish variant forms of voice phishing which are difficult to punish under the Criminal Act, as well as conventional types of voice phishing attacks which were punishable under the Criminal Act as crimes involving fraud or fraud using computers, etc. However, rather than prescribing that “a person who committed an act of telecommunications-based financial fraud” as being subject to punishment, Article 15-2(1) of the Special Act stipulates that “[any person] causing other persons to input data or instructions into computers or other information processing units” (subparag. 1) or “[any person] inputting data or instructions into computers or other information processing units by using other persons’ data he/she acquires”(subparag. 2) shall be punished for telecommunications-based financial fraud. This, in turn, has caused confusion as to interpreting the said provision in practice. As to the subject case, the Majority Opinion expressly stated that “The act of ‘inputting information or instruction for the purpose of telecommunications-based financial fraud’ which is subject to punishment under Article 15-2(1) of the Special Act (hereinafter “this case’s penal provision”) means ‘inputting information or instruction for the purpose of remitting/transferring money into an account used for fraud by committing a telecommunications-based fraud against another person.’ Therefore, in this case, the act of inputting information, etc. on the holder of the account used for fraud into an information processing unit for the purpose of withdrawing cash from the said account after the victim’s money was remitted/transferred to the account used for fraud does not constitute an element of crime prescribed under this case’s penal provision.” The subject case is significant in that it was the Supreme Court’s first declaration as to interpreting the meaning of the phrase “inputting information or instruction” prescribed under the aforementioned Article 15-2(1), based on not only the said Article’s language in itself but also the systematic relationship with the provision as to the definition of telecommunications-based financial fraud (Article 2 subparag. 2) and logical context. 종래 형법상 사기죄 또는 컴퓨터등사용사기죄로 처벌되던 보이스피싱 행위를 포함하여 위 규정으로는 처벌이 어려운 변종 보이스피싱 행위까지도 처벌하기 위하여 2014. 1. 28. 법률 제12384호로 개정된 통신사기피해환급법은 제15조의2로 전기통신금융사기죄를 신설하였다. 그런데 통신사기피해환급법 제15조의2 제1항은 ‘전기통신금융사기의 행위를 한 자’라고 하지 않고, ‘전기통신금융사기를 목적으로, 타인으로 하여금 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치에 정보 또는 명령을 입력하게 하는 행위를 하거나(제1호), 취득한 타인의 정보를 이용하여 컴퓨터 등 정보처리장치에 정보 또는 명령을 입력하는 행위를 한 자’라고 규정하여, 그 해석에 관하여 실무상 혼란이 있어 왔다. 대상판결의 다수의견은, 이 사건 처벌조항에서 처벌대상으로 삼고 있는 ‘전기통신금융사기를 목적으로 하는 정보 또는 명령의 입력’이란 ‘타인에 대한 전기통신금융사기 행위에 의하여 자금을 사기이용계좌로 송금·이체하는 것을 목적으로 하는 정보 또는 명령의 입력’을 의미하는 것이므로, 피해자의 자금이 사기이용계좌로 송금·이체된 후 그 계좌에서 현금을 인출하기 위하여 정보처리장치에 사기이용계좌 명의인의 정보 등을 입력하는 행위는 이 사건 처벌조항에서 정한 구성요건에 해당하지 않는다고 선언하였다. 대상판결의 다수의견은, 이 사건 처벌조항의 문언 자체뿐만 아니라 전기통신금융사기 정의 규정(제2조 제2호)과의 체계적 관계와 논리적 맥락에 따라 위 처벌조항에서 말하는 ‘정보 또는 명령의 입력행위’를 해석하여 그 의미를 최초로 선언하였다는 데 그 의의가 있다.
고제성 한국형사판례연구회 2018 刑事判例硏究 Vol.26 No.-
In the case of Fictitious Declaration of Intention in Collusion, an formal agreement between the parties was made, which is why the record related to these contents being filled out at the register may not be seen as a false entry and not be considered as having committed a crime in false entry in officially authenticated original deed. However, what matter in false entry in officially authenticated original deed are not the actual facts but “facts on rights and duties”. Thus, it is right to judge false entry not only on the existence of the legal acts or the literal meaning of the authentic deed they caused but also on the legal effectiveness. Therefore, making government official to fill out an authentic deed by affecting as if the fictitious declaration of Intention in Collusion is an effective legal action, which is not, can not be but called an false entry, regardless of existence of appearance. Admitting private autonomy doesn’t mean allowing declaring ineffective legal action as if it had legal force and recoring fake facts on the authentic deed.