Supreme Court: Even Without Full Details of the Crime, Voice Phishing 'Collector' Can Be Punished as Accomplice

Supreme Court Overturns Acquittal, Says "Indirect Awareness" Is Sufficient
1.21 Billion Won Defrauded Through Voice Phishing

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the precedent that even if a voice phishing cash collector did not know the full details of the crime, they can be recognized as an accomplice if they had the awareness of participating in the crime.

According to the legal community on the 12th, the Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Park Young-jae) overturned the original ruling that acquitted Mr. A, who was charged with fraud, forgery of private documents, and use of forged private documents, and sent the case back to the Daejeon District Court.

The Supreme Court judged that "the original court's decision contained errors affecting the judgment, such as misunderstanding the legal principles regarding intent in fraud and other charges."

Mr. A was put on trial for deceiving victims by pretending to be a financial institution employee in 2022, handing over forged 'full payment certificates,' and receiving 121 million won in cash under the pretext of loan repayment, which he then delivered to voice phishing organization members.

The first trial sentenced Mr. A to 1 year and 6 months in prison, considering that the amount defrauded reached 121 million won and the victims' damages had not been recovered. However, the second trial acquitted Mr. A, stating that he mechanically and repeatedly performed cash collection tasks according to specific instructions from the voice phishing criminals. The second trial believed that Mr. A likely did not recognize that he was carrying out part of the crime based solely on those instructions.

Subsequently, upon the prosecutor's appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling. Following past court precedents, it judged that even if the specific details and process of the crime were not recognized, the charge of accomplice could still be applied. The Supreme Court explained, "The cash collector's awareness can be indirect and does not require specific recognition of the entire method or content of the voice phishing crime."

As grounds for presuming that Mr. A had indirect awareness of the crime, the court cited that he did not verify the name or organization of the company that hired him, was entrusted with large sums of cash collection duties by a defendant he had never met in person, and used part of the victims' cash for his own security and allowances.

It added, "Considering the operational reality of voice phishing organizations run in a cell-like structure, the defendant does not necessarily have to fully grasp the substance and entirety of the voice phishing crime to be considered a joint principal offender of each crime."