40s Acquitted for Acting as Voice Phishing Cash Collector Mistaken for 'Beommusa Field Officer'

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A man in his 40s who was deceived by a job advertisement under the name of a judicial scrivener and acted as a cash collector in a voice phishing crime was acquitted by the Supreme Court.

On the 3rd, the Supreme Court Division 1 (Presiding Justice Park Junghwa) announced that it upheld the lower court's ruling that acquitted A (40), who was indicted for aiding fraud, in the appeal trial.

Earlier, A was prosecuted for aiding a fraud crime worth a total of 400 million won by delivering cash given by victims or depositing it into a specific account under the instructions of voice phishing organization members last year.

However, A argued in court that he "only worked as instructed and had no suspicion whatsoever that it was related to voice phishing." In fact, he was hired just by a phone call after seeing a job advertisement under the name of a judicial scrivener looking for an "outside worker for court auctions and bonds," and it was revealed that he received instructions via phone or text messages without ever visiting the judicial scrivener's office in person.

Nevertheless, the first trial court found that A had "dolus eventualis" regarding the fraud and sentenced him to one year in prison. Dolus eventualis refers to a situation where there is no direct intent, but the perpetrator foresees the possibility of the criminal result and proceeds with the act. At that time, the court pointed out, "Even from a general perspective, it was a situation where suspicion could arise that this was not a normal debt collection task," and "It is hard to accept the statement that there was no suspicion at all that it could be related to voice phishing."

On the other hand, the second trial court overturned the first trial's ruling and acquitted him. The court judged that it was difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A was even indirectly aware that his actions were related to voice phishing and the crime.

The second trial court stated, "A consistently testified that he 'did not know that what he was doing was voice phishing,' and the instructions he received were simple and mechanical, such as victims' personal information, locations, and accounts to deposit money," and added, "Although voice phishing crimes are widely known socially, it would have been difficult to know the complex process such as the role of a cash collector."

The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. The court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, stating, "The lower court did not err in its understanding of the law regarding intent in aiding fraud."

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