Innocent Economic Crime | Fraud, Forgery of Private Documents, Use of Forged Documents -Seoul Central District Court 2022 Go-Dan***

-Case Brief: The client has allegedly “received instructions from an unknown person impersonating public service personnel from a financial institution,

such as the Financial Supervisory Service or the Financial Services Commission, to meet the victim in person, collect money, and deliver it to another suspect in return of promise of money per case.

The client conspired to commit telephone financial fraud by playing their respective roles.” The client was identified as a voice phishing money collector and tried as an accomplice in fraud.

-Applicable Law: Article 347 (Fraud) of the Criminal Act (1) A person who defrauds others to receive delivery of goods or gain property shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years or a fine under 20 million won. /

Article 231 (Forgery or Alteration of Private Documents, etc.) A person who, for the purpose of exercising rights and duties, or providing proof of facts, forges or falsifies another person's documents or drawings,

shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum of five years or by a fine under ten million won./ Article 234 (Exercise of Forged Documents, etc.) A person who uses documents, drawings, or special media records,

such as electromagnetic records, made by the crimes as prescribed in Articles 231 through 233, shall be punished for the prescribed sentence for the respective crime.

- Attorney's Assistance: The defense was convinced that the client, regardless of the circumstances,

was genuinely remorseful for his (her) actions that incurred damages on victims and was oblivious that (s)he took part in a voice phishing crime, unlike other voice phishing money collectors.

Even though the client has worked for only a day, the fact that many voice phishing money collectors had worked for a short period and claimed that they were unaware of committing crimes put the client in an unfavorable situation because only a few cases won an acquittal in the actual practice of law.

The lawyer asked the court what acts of deception and disposition the client made at that time established the basis of the fraud crime elements.

To convince the judge that the client did not have the awareness or intention to commit the crime of voice phishing, he argued the following points:

△ The fact that the client got a part-time job through an accredited job search site called 'Alba Heaven' (in the case of Alba Heaven, only officially registered companies have access to resumes),

△ The fact that the voice phishing member who contacted the client after seeing his (her) resume introduced his company as 'Law Firm 00' and that the job description was 'to meet customers and deliver documents.'

When the defendant added 'hw51 (the ID given by the supervisor)' on KakaoTalk, the channel description and logo of 'Law Office 00' appeared, △The fact that 'Law Office 00' can be searched on Naver; shows the above law office is an existing firm

△ The fact that Covid-19 created a situation where an interview was conducted not in person does not raise any suspicion,

△ The fact that the working hours are from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekdays and one cannot overlook the nature of the work reflects that of a law firm,

such as nature of the job is collecting debts (i.e., that there is a sufficient room for misconceiving that it is a regular business of a conventional company),

△ The fact that the client used his (her) personal debit card in the process of collecting and delivering cash,

(s)he never engaged in a conversation with the victims, and (s)he stopped working the next day when his friends said his (her) job seems strange,

△ The fact that three days after the client searched on the Internet and realized that what (s)he was doing was voice phishing, (s)he went straight to the police station to make a report,

△ The fact that the client received the payment via bank transfer and (s)he delivered the money received from the victims to other employees other than deposit cash into his (her) account in ATM without bankbook,

△ Just by looking at the conversation between the client and the supervisor, there is no reason to suspect a crime in particular.

Lastly, the lawyers acknowledged that the client was not faultless apart from the fact that there was no intention,

and because the client felt morally responsible, (s)he helped the victim recover as much as possible and reached an agreement with the help of lawyers.

- Outcome: As a result, the court accepted the lawyer's arguments and acquitted the client.

- Significance of the result: As the damage caused by voice phishing crimes has increased in recent years,

investigative agencies and courts are strengthening the punishment for those delegated to withdraw and deliver cash to eradicate voice phishing crimes.

Even those who only took the role of cash collector can receive a much greater sentence than before.

Although a general rule of thumb says exercising common sense with caution prevents a person from falling victim to voice phishing crimes, they still happen one after another. Until now,

judges imposed sentences on voice phishing collectors even if there is any reasonable doubt for the defendants' guilt when there is room for them to suspect their involvement in criminal activities or perceive their cash collections as out of the ordinary.

We consider the above case as a case that serves as a guideline that each case involving voice phishing cash collection may implement different criteria to determine the crime of defrauding.

It is also a case that reminded us once again of the great principle of criminal law that states a person alleged to have committed fraud is acquitted unless

the facts of the prosecution are true beyond a reasonable doubt that there is awareness and intention to engage in fraud, at least involuntarily, rather than vague awareness or suspicion of illegality.

- Attorneys in charge of the case: Attorney Nak-eui Kim, Attorney Won-joon Yang