Supreme Court: "Cannot Punish for Handing Over Check Card Deceived by Loan Proposal"

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul. Photo by Honam Moon munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that if someone was deceived by a voice phishing organization member who said, "To get a loan, you need a check card for loan principal and interest payments," and lent their card, it cannot be considered that the loan was given as a 'consideration,' and thus they cannot be punished for violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

On the 10th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) announced that it overturned the lower court's ruling, which had sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 3 million won on charges of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and remanded the case to the Cheongju District Court.

Previously, Mr. A was prosecuted on charges of handing over a check card in his name to a courier sent by a voice phishing organization member who had offered a loan through KakaoTalk text messages in 2019, saying, "If you send a check card, we will provide a loan."

Article 6, Paragraph 3 of the current Electronic Financial Transactions Act stipulates that "No one shall lend or borrow access media for electronic financial transactions, including check cards, while receiving, demanding, or promising consideration."

The first trial court sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 3 million won. At that time, the court stated, "The defendant gave the check card while promising to obtain a loan opportunity in a situation where it was difficult to get a loan normally," and "there is a consideration relationship between the loan opportunity and the delivery of the check card."

The second trial court also upheld this judgment and dismissed Mr. A's appeal.

However, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. The court stated, "The defendant gave the card to pay the principal and interest on the loan," and "this cannot be seen as a consideration relationship corresponding to the economic benefit of the loan or the opportunity for a loan."

It added, "The defendant was deceived by lies into giving the check card," and "the lower court erred in its legal interpretation regarding the establishment of the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which affected the judgment."

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