[1] The meaning of "credit" in the crime of undermining credit

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that the above act does not constitute a crime of damaging credibility in case where the business entity, who was an operator of Kwikset Service, spreads false facts and caused customers to be aware of the fact that the business entity had delayed delivery and delayed delivery, was the Kwikset Service

[1] In the crime of undermining credibility under Article 313 of the Criminal Code, “credit” refers to an economic credit, namely, a person’s ability to pay money or a person’s intent to pay money.

[2] In a case where Kwikset service operator, in the course of delivering services, and where the customer's complaint is anticipated, the Defendant prepared and issued a receipt in the name of Kwikset service in the ordinary competition with the customer, and let the customer recognize that the business entity delayed delivery was the victim's management service, the case affirming the judgment below which acquitted the Defendant of primary charges of damage to the Defendant's credit on the ground that even though Kwikset service's main contents of the contract are prompt and kind delivery, it is difficult to deem the above act to constitute an act detrimental to the victim's economic credit, i.e., payment ability or social trust in the payer's intent

[1] Article 313 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 313 of the Criminal Code, Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 68Do1660 Decided January 21, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1313 Decided May 25, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6264 Decided July 10, 2008

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009No849 Decided June 4, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

“Credit” in the crime of undermining credit under Article 313 of the Criminal Act refers to an economic credit, namely, a person’s ability to pay or intent to pay, social trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 68Do1660, Jan. 21, 1969; 2006Do6264, Jul. 10, 2008).

The lower court determined that the primary facts charged of the instant case did not constitute a crime of undermining credit on the ground that it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of making the business entity that spreaded false facts and delayed delivery to customers as if it were the Kwikset service company operating the victim’s business constituted an act undermining the economic credibility of the victim, i.e., payment ability or social trust in the intent of payment.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the meaning of "credit" under Article 313 of the Criminal Act, contrary to what is 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 Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)