Why Different Verdicts for the Same Charges Like Card Rental in Voice Phishing?

A fined 3 million won in summary trial
B acquitted after active defense in formal trial
Legal circles say "formal trial favors defense"

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] Two individuals who were deceived by promises of quick loans and handed over their check cards to voice phishing gangs have been brought to trial. The charge is violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. Lending an 'access medium' such as a check card in exchange for compensation constitutes a criminal offense. However, the court's judgments on these individuals differed.

On February, Shin Hyun-il, Chief Judge of Criminal Division 12 at Pyeongtaek Branch of Suwon District Court, found Mr. A guilty of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and issued a summary order imposing a fine of 3 million KRW. A summary order is a disposition such as a fine, penalty, or confiscation issued through written review without the defendant having to appear in court. Mr. A was summarily prosecuted for handing over his check card after receiving a proposal from a loan company last September to "send a check card to repay the principal and interest of the loan." It was later confirmed that the loan company was a voice phishing gang. Although Mr. A protested his innocence, claiming he was "tricked into sending the check card," the court did not accept this explanation.

On the other hand, Mr. B, who was prosecuted for the same crime, was acquitted in the first trial. Like Mr. A, he lent his check card to a voice phishing gang. However, Gu Chang-mo, Chief Judge of Criminal Division 3 at Daejeon District Court, which handled the case, ruled that the act of handing over the check card was not a "rental for compensation" prohibited by law. The judge determined that the essence was that Mr. B was deceived by the voice phishing gang's trickery.

In the legal community, the reason for different rulings on the same criminal facts is attributed to whether a formal trial was requested. Jang Joon-sung, a lawyer at Law Firm How, said, "Cases prosecuted summarily generally do not undergo as thorough a review as formal trials. If you want to actively exercise your right to defense, you should request a formal trial." In fact, Mr. B actively argued in the formal trial that he blocked the use of his account before the voice phishing crime was realized. This exercise of defense rights ultimately played a significant role in the acquittal.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.