AI Cheating Suspicions Involving Tax Accountant Exam’s Top Scorer Prove True... Police Vow Rigorous Probe

On the 15th, Candidate A appeared on a lawyer’s YouTube channel and said he had cheated in both the first- and second-stage exams of the 63rd tax accountant exam, using a micro camera, a smartphone and generative AI.

He said, “I wrote everything I did in a statement of confession and submitted it to the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency,” adding, “I will submit all remaining materials and devices to investigators as evidence, just as they are.”

Candidate A’s statement of confession was received that day at the public service office (information desk) of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, and the case was assigned to its Metropolitan Investigation Unit.

Police, who assigned the case as soon as it was received, said, “We plan to conduct a swift and thorough investigation in accordance with procedure.”

Using an electronic device or AI not permitted in a national qualification exam to write answers constitutes cheating and is punishable.

In such cases, the candidate could face charges including obstruction of official duties by deceptive means, obstruction of business and fraud.

Candidate A reportedly achieved the highest score in the first- and second-stage tax accountant exams, which were held in April and July.

In the first-stage exam’s four subjects, Candidate A scored 97.5 only in public finance and received 100 in each of the other three: Introduction to Tax Law, Introduction to Accounting and Commercial Law. He got just one of the first-stage exam’s 160 questions wrong.

He then passed the essay-based second-stage exam with scores of 192 in Accounting I, 190 in Accounting II, 114 in Tax Law I and 167 in Tax Law II. Suspicions of cheating spread, with people on online forums pointing out that even practicing tax accountants said it would be impossible to earn such high scores in the limited time.

The national qualification exam for tax accountants is administered by the Human Resources Development Service of Korea under commission from the government.

Candidate A reportedly took the exam seated close to the proctors but was not caught cheating.

The Human Resources Development Service of Korea had earlier explained that two proctors were assigned to the exam room and that, counting from the front of the classroom, Candidate A sat in the center of the second row for the first-stage exam and the center of the first row for the second-stage exam.

If Candidate A’s account is accurate, it would mean that he cheated using electronic devices even right in front of the podium while two proctors watched, and the controversy over vulnerabilities in the management of national qualification exams is expected to grow.
Candidate A said, “My cheating disappointed and disheartened the other examinees and undermined trust in the fairness of the exam,” adding, “I deeply regret and repent what I did.”