Suncheon Attorney | Client Punished for Voice Phishing, Prosecutor's Appeal Dismissed and Original Judgment Upheld

The client, who resides in Suncheon, was in a situation in which the client had received a suspended sentence at the first instance on the charge of providing a person of unknown identity with information related to the victims' financial accounts while knowing that it would be used in a voice phishing crime, and receiving a commission as compensation for the offense.

The prosecutor pointed out that the client committed the offense while knowing that it would be used in a crime, and that the nature of the offense was very serious given that the amount of damage was substantial, and filed an appeal requesting a heavier punishment.

Because the client had received a suspended sentence at the first instance, the client would inevitably be given an actual custodial sentence if the prosecutor's appeal were granted.

To have the prosecutor's appeal dismissed, the client sought an attorney recommendation in Suncheon and visited the Daeryun Suncheon office.

🔗Voice phishing is a type of telecommunications-based financial fraud. Voice phishing refers to a crime in which a perpetrator uses telecommunications means such as a mobile phone to deceive or threaten another person into remitting or transferring funds, or to obtain personal information.

Recently, as phishing methods have evolved, there have been many cases in which, to evade investigation, perpetrators lure part-time workers with the bait of high-paying side jobs and use them as couriers or cash collectors.

Under the Criminal Act, a person who participates in a voice phishing crime and is found to have committed fraud may be punished by imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine of up to 20 million won, and not only ordinary participants but also attempted offenders may be punished.

The client admitted and confessed to the offense from the investigation stage.

The client also submitted all of the materials in the client's possession to the investigative authorities to aid the investigation in this case.

The Suncheon attorney emphasized that, although the client committed an offense that should not have been committed, as set out in the facts charged in this case, the client returned the entire criminal proceeds obtained from it to the victims along with an apology.

The Suncheon attorney also argued that the client had voluntarily completed a voice phishing eradication education program in order not to reoffend.

The Suncheon attorney emphasized that, although it was true that the client, who had lived through economic hardship, failed to resist a momentary temptation and took part in the offense in this case, the client had received a sufficient sentence at the original trial.