A computer repair technician who set up and relocated computers at a scam ring's call center at an acquaintance's request cannot be punished for aiding fraud on that basis alone, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The first division of the Supreme Court, with Justice Cheon Dae-yeop as the presiding justice, recently overturned a lower court ruling that had sentenced a defendant identified as A to two years in prison, suspended for three years, on charges of aiding fraud, and sent the case back to the Suwon High Court, according to legal circles on the 29th.
A was indicted on charges of installing and relocating computers and other equipment at a call center office in Siheung, Gyeonggi Province, between November 2024 and May 2025, at the request of B, whom A had known since middle and high school. Investigators found that B and others used the call center to approach an unspecified number of people, telling them they would refund subscription fees for a paid stock information website, and then defrauded 11 victims of a combined 425.92 million won by claiming they would sell them shares in upcoming KOSDAQ initial public offerings at a discount. Prosecutors, concluding that A had helped by installing and moving the computers while aware of the crime, charged A with fraud, joining and participating in a criminal organization and operating an unlicensed financial investment business.
The trial and appeals courts convicted A of aiding fraud, a lesser charge included in the fraud count, and imposed two years in prison, suspended for three years, along with the forfeiture of 5.52 million won. The appeals court found that A had at least willfully accepted the possibility of the fraud, citing that A had disposed of computers and reinitialized an SSD on B's instructions, that the office windows were covered with blackout film, and that A had seen terms such as "unlisted shares," "rankings" and "returns" on a board inside the office. The court did, however, acquit A of the charge of joining a criminal organization.
The Supreme Court took a different view. It held that establishing aiding and abetting requires more than simply having assisted the principal offender's conduct: the assistance must be closely connected to the realization of the crime and must be judged to have contributed to it in practical terms, such as by bringing about a concrete danger or raising the likelihood that the criminal result would occur. The court found there was considerable room to conclude that A's ordinary business activity had merely been used in the principal offender's crime.
"A has run a mobile computer repair and sales business since 2020 and, after installing the computers at B's request, received nothing more than an ordinary level of payment," the court said. "Beyond installing the computers, A did not contribute to the crime or receive any share of the criminal proceeds, and there is no evidence that A contacted any member of the organization other than B."
The Supreme Court also found a misapprehension of the law in the police interrogation record that had served as the basis for finding intent to aid. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, an interrogation record prepared by investigative authorities can be used as evidence only if the defendant or defense counsel acknowledges its contents in court, and A and the defense counsel had denied the contents of the record.
