Case Type: Aiding and Abetting Fraud & Violation of the Telecommunications Fraud Damage Refund Act 

Result: Non-Arraignment / Case Dismissed at the Police Investigation Stage (Closed Before Booking) 

Case Details: 

1. Case Overview 

The client, a standard breadwinner who faced difficulties securing a loan from first-tier financial institutions, applied for a loan through an online advertisement on a chatting application. The scammer misrepresented themselves as an agent of a legitimate loan firm. In the process of reviewing the loan, the client provided personal identification, account numbers, and OTP information. Consequently, the client's bank account was utilized as a "money mule account" to receive voice-phishing proceeds, through which approximately KRW 160 million passed in a short period. As a result, the client was placed under police investigation for aiding and abetting fraud.

2. Key Defense Points 

Given the substantial amount of KRW 160 million transacted through the account, investigative authorities strongly suspected that the client had implicit knowledge of or willfully blinded themselves to the criminal operation. The defense focused heavily on establishing that the client completely lacked any criminal intent or awareness, based on the criteria set forth by Supreme Court precedents (including Supreme Court Decision 2024Do10141, rendered on December 12, 2024). The defense demonstrated that the client had actively verified the firm’s legitimacy by cross-checking its business registration number on the National Tax Service website, had no face-to-face contact with any victims, received absolutely no financial compensation or commission, and immediately ceased all transactions, suspended the OTP, and voluntarily reported the matter to the police upon detecting suspicious behavior.

3. Case Outcome 

The police authorities fully accepted the defense arguments backed by objective evidence, including KakaoTalk chat logs, call history, tax portal search records, and the voluntary police report. It was officially recognized that the client could not have recognized or anticipated the fraudulent scheme. Despite the significant amount of money involved, the case was successfully closed at the pre-booking stage with a Non-Arraignment (Case Dismissed) decision, clearing the client of all suspicions before formal charges could be brought.

Case Inquiry: Attorney Min-hoo Kim