"Claimed Unawareness of Voice Phishing Crime"—Why a Man in His 40s Received a Prison Sentence Despite Pleading Innocence

The court considered the fact that the recruitment process and job details were unusually suspicious. On the 29th, the legal community reported that the 11th Criminal Division of the Seoul Northern District Court, presided over by Chief Judge Lee Dong-sik, sentenced Mr. A (49) to two years and six months in prison for violating the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and Refund for Loss. Mr.
A was brought to trial on charges of acting as a cash collector for a vishing ring from April to May 2024, following the instructions of the organization’s members. He was accused of stealing a total of 160 million won from four victims. Mr. A came into contact with the vishing organization through an advertisement on a social networking service (SNS) that described the job as a "simple part-time apartment listing photography task.
" Contrary to the ad, he was told, "If you receive auction bid deposits in person and deliver them to a company employee, you will be paid 150,000 won per day. Submitting a copy of your resident registration, ID, and family relation certificate will get you hired as an intern. " Despite this, he accepted the offer.
He ran errands, impersonating an investigator, to collect cash from victims or other collectors and deliver it. He received a portion of the cash collected from victims as his commission. The payment per task ranged from 100,000 to 300,000 won depending on the distance.
Mr. A argued that he did not know he was participating in a vishing crime and claimed he was merely used as a tool. He stated that he researched online about methods of paying auction bid deposits and found that cash payments were possible, which led him to believe his work was legitimate.
However, the court did not accept his defense. The panel pointed out, "Given the dense financial network and the prevalence of electronic financial transactions via computers and mobile phones, it is not typical for clients to hand over large sums of cash or checks on the street to an auction agency as a deposit. " The court further stated, "It is reasonable to conclude that the defendant, at least tacitly, recognized he was collecting money defrauded from victims by a vishing organization and still chose to participate in the crime.
" The court added, "Vishing fraud is highly compartmentalized, and the crime cannot succeed unless every role is performed properly. Therefore, even those who only carry out a part of the operation are considered to have made a substantial contribution to the entire crime. " Nevertheless, the court considered several mitigating factors: Mr.
A appeared to have participated with only minimal awareness as a simple cash collector, was unaware of the full scope of the crime, voluntarily ceased further offenses before being caught, and cooperated sincerely with the investigation and trial.
jyseo@fnnews.com Seo Ji-yoon Reporter