"Side job scams, such as team mission scams, are excluded from relief because they are classified as investment or general fraud. However, side job scams are clearly a type of telecommunications financial fraud (voice phishing), and the system should be improved so that victims are included as eligible for relief." (Excerpt from a National Consent Petition by Mr. OOO on November 6, 2025)

Laws established to prevent voice phishing and restore losses have repeatedly proven ineffective against online scams such as side job scams. Scammers exploit the pretense of a "quid pro quo" relationship, making it difficult for victims to recover their losses. Victims of side job scams are urging for improvements in relevant systems to fill the gaps in social protection.

Getty Images

원본보기 아이콘

The current Special Act on the Prevention of Damage from Telecommunications Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages (Telecommunications Fraud Victim Refund Act) defines voice phishing as deceiving victims through electronic communication devices such as smartphones to cause financial loss. A typical example of voice phishing is a phone call impersonating the prosecutor’s office or the Financial Supervisory Service, demanding money via mobile phone. In the late 2000s, as damage from voice phishing increased due to a fictional character known as "Team Leader Kim Mi-Young," the National Assembly enacted the Telecommunications Fraud Victim Refund Act in 2011. The purpose was both to prevent damage from voice phishing and to help victims recover their losses quickly. According to Article 4 of the Act, financial institutions are required to suspend payments if an account is suspected of being used for voice phishing.

However, not all fraudulent acts committed through electronic communication devices qualify as voice phishing. According to Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Act, acts "disguised as the supply of goods or provision of services" are excluded from voice phishing. This covers cases where scammers pretend to offer goods or services, receive money, and then disappear. For the same reason, side job scams are also excluded from voice phishing. Perpetrators of side job scams are prosecuted under general fraud charges, not under the Telecommunications Fraud Victim Refund Act.

Getty Images

원본보기 아이콘

When the 18th National Assembly enacted the Act in 2010, the phrase "acts disguised as the supply of goods or provision of services" was not considered a major issue. According to the minutes of the National Policy Committee’s plenary session on September 29, 2010, lawmakers focused on the obligation of financial institutions to suspend payments and the payment of compensation to voice phishing victims. There were no significant disagreements between parties during the resolution process. Lee Sacheol, who was then chair of the National Policy Committee’s subcommittee for legal review and a member of the Grand National Party (the predecessor of the People Power Party), stated at the plenary session, "We have established a special relief procedure for ordinary citizens harmed by voice phishing, as an alternative to civil litigation," and "Given the need for sufficient coordination with the judicial system, we gathered opinions from relevant institutions such as the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Financial Services Commission, the Financial Supervisory Service, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Korea Federation of Banks."

The background for including this phrase can be seen in a recent Supreme Court decision. In October of last year, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the Telecommunications Fraud Victim Refund Act, stating, "The reason for excluding acts disguised as the supply of goods or provision of services from voice phishing is to ensure that ordinary online transactions involving goods or services are not subject to regulation as voice phishing," and "This refers to cases where there is a quid pro quo between the parties." In other words, the phrase was included to completely separate ordinary online transaction fraud, which typically involves an exchange of value, from voice phishing.

Getty Images

원본보기 아이콘

The problem is that cases exploiting the loopholes of the Act, which was enacted over a decade ago, are increasing. Online scams targeting an unspecified number of people are structured in a way that allows scammers to avoid being classified as voice phishing by making it appear as though there is a quid pro quo-such as exchanging small sums of money at first. Not only side job scams, which involve labor and monetary compensation, but also new types of scams such as romance scams and no-show scams are excluded from voice phishing because they involve a quid pro quo.

This provision makes it difficult for victims of side job scams to recover their losses. Because these cases are not classified as voice phishing, it is impossible to immediately freeze the scammer’s account. If a case is classified as voice phishing, the victim can immediately request a payment suspension through the bank or with police assistance. Even if the case falls under other charges, such as those covered by the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information (the "Special Financial Transactions Act"), applying for a payment suspension is subject to strict requirements. The financial transaction must be linked to money laundering or terrorism, and the financial institution must report it to the Financial Intelligence Unit.

The speed of recovery is also significantly slower. The Act requires financial institutions to immediately suspend accounts if there is any suspicion of voice phishing. Victims of voice phishing can apply for relief and recover their money within two months from the date of the public announcement of the commencement of the claim extinguishment procedure. In contrast, victims of side job scams can realistically only recover losses through civil or criminal lawsuits. According to the Supreme Court’s 2025 Judicial Yearbook, the average time taken for a first-instance decision in civil cases by panels at courts nationwide last year was 437.3 days-over a year.

원본보기 아이콘