[1] Where the exercise of rights by deception constitutes a crime of fraud

[2] The case holding that if an industrial accident compensation insurance benefit was paid by applying for the medical care by fraudulent means such as falsely stating the circumstance of the occurrence of the injury in the application for the industrial accident compensation insurance, it constitutes a deception in fraud

[1] Article 347 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 347 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do1405 delivered on October 14, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3551) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6410 Delivered on June 13, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1557) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4914 Delivered on December 26, 2003 (Gong2004Sang, 298)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006No1272 Decided February 2, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case of exercise of rights by means of deception, if the act belonging to the exercise of rights and the deception belonging to such means are comprehensively observed, and such deception cannot be acceptable as a means of exercise of rights under social norms, the act of exercise of rights constitutes fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6410, Jun. 13, 2003, etc.).

According to the records, if the defendant, while he was under the influence of alcohol while running a summer training conference of the (name omitted) federation, was involved in an industrial accident compensation insurance benefits by filing an application for industrial accident compensation insurance with the victim's Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service and filing an application for industrial accident compensation insurance benefits with the victim's Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service that "if the defendant received industrial accident compensation insurance benefits by filing an application for medical care as mentioned above in the application for industrial accident compensation insurance and by filing an application for industrial accident compensation benefits by fraudulent means such as falsely stating the circumstances leading to the injury, it is beyond the limits that it can be accepted as a means of exercising the right by social norms, and even if the defendant had the status of receiving industrial accident insurance benefits, it does not affect the judgment that the defendant had the status of receiving industrial accident insurance benefits.

In the same purport, it is proper to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to occupational accidents or deception in fraud, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)