Hello. I am attorney Lee Kyung-joon of Cheongchul Law Firm.

In voice phishing criminal cases, the most common story I hear from clients is: “I just thought it was a high-paying part-time job, and one day I was suddenly charged as an accomplice in a fraud case.” The overwhelming majority of these matters involve so-called “cash couriers,” who meet victims in person under someone else's instructions, collect cash, and then deposit it into another account.

Almost every client says, “I really did not know it was voice phishing,” but criminal-law “intent” is not negated by that single sentence. In voice phishing cases, the concept of “conditional intent (미필적 고의)” effectively serves as the decisive yardstick for whether a defendant will be punished.

For some time, lower courts reached divergent conclusions on this issue. Relatively recently, however, the Supreme Court squarely addressed it and laid out specific criteria in Supreme Court Decision dated December 12, 2024, Case No. 2024Do10141 (Fraud, etc.).

1. Overview of the Case

The defendant joined the offense as a cash courier at the suggestion of an unidentified voice phishing organization member. He met victims in person, presented forged public and private documents bearing the names of financial institutions and the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, received cash, and remitted the funds by depositing them into another person's account in that person's name without a bankbook.

The prosecution charged the defendant with fraud, forgery and use of private documents, and related offenses. The first instance court found him guilty, but the appellate court acquitted him, holding that intent could not be conclusively recognized. The Supreme Court found that the appellate court had misapplied the law on conditional intent and reversed and remanded the case.

2. What Is “Conditional Intent”?

Under Korean criminal law, “intent (고의)” means the will to commit an act while recognizing that the act constitutes a crime. Among these, “conditional intent (미필적 고의)” refers to “a case in which the actor performs the act while recognizing the possibility that a crime may result and accepting that possibility as unavoidable.”

In simpler terms, if a person sets their mind on “proceeding anyway because the money is good, even while vaguely sensing that this might be voice phishing,” conditional intent for fraud can be recognized.

3. The Supreme Court's Criteria for Conditional Intent

In the above decision, the Supreme Court held that, in determining whether a voice phishing cash courier had conditional intent, the following factors should be considered comprehensively.

(1) the content of communications and the means of contact between the defendant and the voice phishing organization member; (2) whether the defendant met the person who assigned the cash collection work in person, and whether an employment contract or service entrustment contract was prepared; (3) whether the circumstances and process by which the defendant came to handle the cash collection work can be regarded as ordinary; (4) the specific content and procedure of the cash collection work; (5) the defendant's conduct and statements when meeting the victims and the specific means used (such as forged public or private documents); (6) the number of collections, the scale of the amounts collected, and the methods of remittance and delivery (including whether a third party's personal information was used); and (7) the level and method of payment, as well as the defendant's age, intelligence, career, and other personal circumstances.

In short, the Supreme Court made clear that a defendant need not have concretely recognized the entire structure of the voice phishing offense to be punished as an accomplice. If multiple circumstances exist from which the defendant could have at least vaguely recognized the possibility that his work was not ordinary, conditional intent may be found.

4. Why Conditional Intent Was Recognized in This Case

Applying the above criteria, the Supreme Court pointed out (1) that the methods and harms of voice phishing are widely known in society, yet the defendant was assigned a sizable cash collection role through abnormal and exceptional procedures, and (2) that the defendant's cash collection and remittance/delivery methods were far removed from ordinary collection practices, and assigning large-scale cash collection to a person hired through such exceptional procedures is hard to imagine outside the voice phishing context.

The court further considered (3) that the defendant continued the work even after circumstances arose from which he could have recognized that the work was illegal; (4) that he did not even verify the amount of cash collected, and the payment procedure was likewise unusual; (5) that the documents delivered to the victims were unrelated to the purported work and crude in form; and (6) that, in light of the defendant's age and social experience, it was difficult to conclude that he could not have recognized these circumstances. On these grounds, conditional intent was found.

5. Practical Implications

This decision once again confirms that simply stating “I did not know it was voice phishing” makes acquittal very difficult. Once conditional intent is recognized, even a defendant who was unaware of the organization's full scope and substance may be punished as a co-principal in fraud. Given the scale of harm and the number of times a defendant participated, prison sentences are frequently imposed.

That said, not every cash courier case leads to a guilty verdict. Where the defendant went through an ordinary hiring process (formal interview, employment contract, regular salary payment), the work is outwardly indistinguishable from ordinary delivery or errand jobs, and it can be shown that objectively there were few opportunities to recognize the illegality, there is still room to contest the case and seek an acquittal.

6. What Clients Should Confirm at the Early Stage of a Case

When consulting with a cash courier client, the first task is to organize the above seven factors together with objective evidence. Simply repeating “I really did not know” will not help.

Specifically, clients should accurately organize at the early stage of the case: (1) through whom and through what route (Telegram, job sites, acquaintances) the contact was made, and what the work was said to be; (2) how the interview, contract, and salary payment were structured; (3) what messages and call records remain; (4) whether the client ever became suspicious during the work, and if so, when and why; and (5) the client's age, education, and work history.

In voice phishing cases, the degree of restitution has a decisive impact on sentencing. Accordingly, it is important to attempt victim compensation and settlement as early as possible, within the client's means.

7. Conclusion

The client's statement that “I really did not know it was voice phishing” may often be sincere. However, criminal law does not accept that sincerity at face value. It assesses conditional intent by comprehensively weighing the seven objective circumstances above.

If you or a family member has been booked under suspicion of acting as a cash courier, do not hesitate. Please consult a criminal defense lawyer as early as possible so that the case can be carefully reviewed against the Supreme Court's standards and a statement and settlement strategy can be designed together.

Cheongchul Law Firm brings together attorneys with extensive experience in criminal investigation and litigation to analyze each client's case in detail and to design optimal statement, settlement, and defense strategies. If you face a criminal matter, including a voice phishing cash courier case, we encourage you to consult Cheongchul Law Firm at the earliest stage of the case.