Shaman fraud, guilty or innocent depending on voluntary interpretation

According to data released by Forest of Innovation, a startup analysis company, the domestic fortune-telling market is estimated to be worth about 1.4 trillion won. Also, recently, it is said that fortune telling using AI, such as ChatGPT, is gaining great popularity, especially among the younger generation. Quite a few people are very interested in fortune telling.

The problem arises when one is too ‘serious’ about fortune-telling. This is because excessive sincerity usually leads to excessive spending. There are many different types, from cases where amulets cost as little as a few hundred thousand won to cases where hundreds of millions of won are spent on so-called exorcism values. Since the amount of money involved is large, conflicts often arise. Most customers complain about why things don't work out even though they invested a lot of money believing the fortune teller's advice. And these conflicts quite often lead to legal disputes.

Recently, we led the acquittal of a shaman client in his 40s. He was investigated by the police on charges of swindling about 200 million won from customers in the name of a ritual. The customer complained of injustice. He was told by the client, “If you don’t perform a ritual, your business won’t go well,” and was deceived into giving him money. However, the police did not admit the charges. The reason was that there was no evidence that the client had made a statement such as "You have to borrow money to receive the ritual," and that the customer had been informed in advance that refunds were not possible. In addition, it was judged that it would be difficult to apply fraud charges simply because the client had been living as a shaman for a considerable period of time and the effect of the exorcism had not been seen.

There are other examples as well. Another shaman in his 50s appeared in court as a defendant. He was also accused of inducing payment from customers who visited his shrine, saying he would perform a ritual for them. The money given by customers amounted to tens of millions of won. The shaman did not back down from his stance that “the guest voluntarily chose the exorcism.”

What was the court's decision? The shaman in question was sentenced to probation. It means that the crime has been admitted. The court explained, “Proposing a ritual by citing specific examples, such as saying that a family member will die if the ritual is not performed immediately, can be viewed as an ‘act of deception.’” He also added, “The shaman yelling at the guests and making them raise their card limit even though there was no reason to rush the exorcism was outside the acceptable limits as a religious act.”

In this way, a shaman's actions may be considered 'religious advice' depending on the situation, but they may also be considered 'property misappropriation'. And the key to determining this is 'whether the shaman's actions meet the requirements for fraud.' In the case of fraud, there must be all of the following: △a deceptive act to deceive the other party, △an act of disposal of the victim's property as a result, △actual property damage, and △an intention to take someone else's money from the beginning.

If the shaman's words are merely comforting or religious remarks, it is difficult to view this as deception. However, if the purpose was to extort money by creating fear without a clear basis and repeatedly inducing large payments, there is a risk of being punished for fraud.

Even if the victim voluntarily gave money, a crime of fraud can be established if the cause was deception, that is, deception. The issue is how the shaman persuaded the victim and under what psychological state the victim was in to pay the money.

To prevent such disputes, it is essential to record the consultation or keep records such as text messages and account details. In addition, if there is an excessive demand for money, it is necessary to immediately seek legal assistance from an expert.
 

Small Business Team

[View full article]
Shaman fraud, guilty or not guilty depending on voluntary interpretation of doctor (go)