I sold a cell phone, but was I aiding and abetting a voice phishing crime?... Prosecutors, branch manager 'not indicted'

Prosecutors “Agent salespeople have no legal obligation to confirm the purpose of activation.”

The manager of a mobile phone store who sold and activated mobile phones used in voice phishing crimes was not indicted.

According to the legal community on the 7th, the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office cleared Ms. A, a woman in her 40s, of charges of violating the Telecommunications Business Act and aiding and abetting fraud in May.

While working as a store manager at a mobile phone dealership from January 2021 to August 2023, Mr. A was accused of activating four mobile phones with a market value of 7 million won to members of a voice phishing organization. The police conducted an investigation, determining that Mr. A had aided and abetted the crime by condoning the use of the cell phone despite knowing that it would be used for so-called ‘mobile phone gangster’ purposes.

In response to this, Mr. A denied the charge to the police, saying, “I checked my ID card according to the telecommunication company’s activation manual, and there was nothing particularly suspicious during the activation process.” He also claimed, “There are cases where expensive phones are sometimes used for business purposes,” in relation to the police investigation into the use of the latest, expensive terminals for business use.

The prosecution, which forwarded the case, determined that Mr. A was not guilty.

This is because the intention to collude between Mr. A and the voice phishing organization is not recognized, and the mobile phone dealer has no legal obligation to individually check the customer's activation purpose. Moreover, it was confirmed that some mobile phones were activated by employees other than Mr. A.

Based on the results of this investigation, the prosecution concluded that Mr. A was not aware of the crime.

Attorney Park Jeong-ho of the Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A, explained, “If the intent of aiding and abetting cannot be proven to the extent of excluding reasonable doubt, it must be judged for the benefit of the defendant.” He added, “Mr. A only performed his duties in accordance with the telecommunication company activation manual, had no knowledge of the crime of cell phone thievery, and did not receive compensation, so it was recognized that there was no intent.”

Reporter Seohyun Lee (sunshine@kyeonggi.com)

[View full article]
Selling a cell phone, but aiding and abetting a voice phishing crime?... Prosecutors 'not indict' the store manager at the dealership (link)