사기죄의 불법구조와 ‘재산상 손해’ 개념의 검토

A Review on the Illegal structure and Property damages in Fraud Provision

본고는 사기죄의 성립요건으로서 ‘재산상 손해’개념을 중심으로 그 불법구조를 검토하였다. 사기죄는 개인의 재산을 보호법익으로 한다. 신뢰의 원칙, 경제적 의사결정의자유도 부차적인 보호법익이 인정된다고 볼 여지도 있으나, 이렇게 해석하면 사기죄의재산범죄로서의 성격이 부정될 여지가 있고, 재산상 손해가 없는 경우에도 사기죄 성립을 긍정할 여지가 있다. 따라서 사기죄의 보호법익은 재산권만이라고 보아야 한다. 사기죄의 주된 보호법익을 재산으로 본다면 당연히 재산상의 손해발생은 필요하다고 보아야 한다. 사기죄는 전체재산을 보호법익으로 하는 침해범이므로 재산상의 손해가 발생하지 않으면 사기죄는 성립할 수 없다. 따라서 대법원이 사기죄의 성립에 재산상의손해가 발생할 필요가 없다고 보는 것은 타당하지 않다. 또한 사기죄는 전체재산을 보호법익으로 하는 침해범이므로 재산상의 손해가 발생하지 않으면 사기죄는 성립할 수없다. 따라서 대법원이 사기죄의 성립에 재산상의 손해가 발생할 필요가 없다고 보는것은 타당하지 않다. 법률상 보호되는 권리는 아니더라도 사실상 경제적 이익을 가져오는 한, 형법상 재산개념에 포함시켜 그 침해로부터 보호할 필요가 있다. 따라서 사법상 비록 불법이거나승인되지 않는 재산이라도 이에 대한 범행 자체는 형법의 독자적인 견지에서 처벌하는것이 타당하다. 이렇게 보는 것이 불법원인급여에 있어 사기죄를 인정하는 태도와도 부합한다. 무엇을 재산상의 손해라 볼 건인가에 대해서는 규범적 평가가 필요하며 학계의논의도 정리되지 않은 것으로 보인다. 이를 검토하기 위해 최근 일본 최고재판소의 판례를 살펴보았다. 탑승권발급, 통장개설 등의 행위는 직접적으로 사기죄에서의 재산상손해가 부정되었을 사안이었음에도 불구하고, 행위자의 기망행위의 처벌을 염두에 두고 재산상의 손해를 긍정한 것으로도 볼 수 있다. 사기죄의 해석에 있어 재산상 손해의범위를 해석하는데 참고가 될 것이다.

The benefit and protection of the fraud crime is the personal property. There is room for the secondary benefit and protection to be granted to the principle of trust and freedom of economic decision-making in view of the fact that the types of and legal penalties for the property crime are distinguished according to the behavioral aspects. However, such interpretation leaves room for the nature as property crime of the fraud crime to be denied, and for the formation of the fraud crime to be affirmed even without any property damage. Therefore, the benefit and protection of fraud crime should be viewed as limited to the property right. Unlike in the cases of misappropriation, property damage is not defined in expressive terms in the fraud crime, so there is a conflict of views as to whether ‘property damage’ can be seen as the element of Consensu Corpus delicti. If the benefit and protection of the fraud crime is largely seen as the property, the occurrence of the property damage should be a prerequisite for the formation of the fraud crime. As the fraud crime is a depriving crime with the entire property as its benefit and protection, it should be noted that the fraud crime cannot be formed unless any damage is done to property. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Supreme Court to view property damage as unnecessary to the formation of the fraud crime. It is thought to be inappropriate to judge that fraud crime has been formed even in the case of a considerable amount of price being paid because this view weakens the property criminality of the fraud crime and degenerates it into the crime of protecting the freedom of decision-making. The Supreme Court should judge only concerning the extent of the deceitful deed without mentioning whether damage has been done to property in recognizing the fraud crime resulting from the use fabrication. In other words, whether the fraud crime is formed or not should be discussed with the reference to whether the deceitful deed has gone beyond the scope of the social reasonability in the case where benefit in return has been received by means of fabricating the original use. It stems from the fact that the Supreme Court does not require property damage when judging the fraud crime. As the fraud crime is a depriving crime with the entire property as its benefit and protection, it cannot be formed unless any damage is done to property. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Supreme Court to view property damage as unnecessary to the formation of fraud crime. As far as the concept of property in the fraud crime actually brings economic benefits even though it is not a legally protected right, it is worth to be protected as a property in the criminal law. Therefore, even though a property is illegal or is not approved, the crime against the property itself should be punished in an independent view of the criminal law. This view is consistent with the attitude of recognizing the fraud crime in payment in illegal causes. A normative evaluation is needed for what can be seen as property damage. In order to review this, some recent precedents in the Japanese Supreme Court were examined. Property damage is seen to have been affirmed mindful of the punishment of the deceitful deed though it would have been denied in the past. The freedom of decision-making and the principle of good faith in transactions were not recognized independently as the benefit and protection of the fraud crime. However, apart from the set of the amount of damage resulting from the violation of the good faith in the transactions, the attitudes of the Japanese precedents of recognizing the nominal property damage will be a reference point to forming the scope of property damage in interpreting the fraud crime.