Fraud is a crime that is established by deceiving others, making them omitted into mistake, and inducing their disposal, thereby gaining property or property benefits.

Here, a dispositive act is a property-dispositive act that gives property or gives property benefits to an offender, etc., and means an act or omission by the defrauded, which directly causes property damage to a free will.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2620, Jul. 26, 2002; 2005Do9221, Jul. 12, 2007). Meanwhile, sexual intercourse with a female cannot be evaluated economically, and the promise of sexual intercourse itself is null and void as a juristic act with a content that violates good morals and other social order.

However, if the property interest which is the object of fraud does not necessarily mean only the economic interest protected under private law, but is sexually committed on the premise that the female will receive money, etc., the consideration for such act constitutes an economic interest which is the object of fraud, and thus, if the female induces the female to pay the consideration for sexually committed act, it is established a crime of fraud.

(3) The court below held that the defendant acquired the economic benefits equivalent to the price of sexual act on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, on the following grounds: (a) although the defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the victims money, he proposed that he had sexual intercourse periodically on the condition that he would pay 5 million won or 6 million won per month to the victims, and that the victims had sexual intercourse with the victim on the premise that he would receive the above money from the defendant; (b) it is reasonable to view that the defendant acquired the economic benefits equivalent to the price of the sexual act; and (c) on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, it was amended by Act No. 11574, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply.