We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
If you need legal assistance regarding voice phishing sentencing, involvement, or voluntary surrender
Voice Phishing Punishment – What Charges Apply? In voice phishing cases, multiple offenses are often implicated simultaneously. The following charges are commonly applied: Fraud under the Criminal Act Aiding and abetting fraud Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (transfer or lending of access media) Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds ▷ Article 347 of the Criminal Act – Fraud If a person deceives another and obtains property or financial benefits: → Punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million. ▷ Article 49 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act If a person transfers, acquires, or lends access media such as bank accounts, check cards, or OTP devices: → Punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 30 million. ▷ Organized Crime or Co-Principal Liability If a voice phishing organization qualifies as a criminal organization under the Criminal Act, the offense of organizing or participating in a criminal organization (Article 114 of the Criminal Act) may be established separately. If recognized as a co-principal in fraud, the defendant may be held responsible for the entire amount obtained through the scheme, significantly increasing sentencing severity. Why Even Minor Participants Receive Prison Sentences Claiming “I did not personally deceive the victim” is not sufficient. Courts comprehensively consider factors such as: Awareness of the overall criminal structure Expectation of unusually high compensation Repeated participation Total damage amount Whether restitution was made For example: ✔ Repeatedly delivering cash as a courier ✔ Systematically following instructions through Telegram or similar platforms ✔ Receiving high compensation If these circumstances are recognized, courts have imposed actual prison sentences even on first-time offenders. Voice phishing punishment is not easily mitigated simply by arguing that one’s role was limited. Where Do Sentence Reduction or Acquittal Possibilities Arise? Not all cases are evaluated identically. In many instances, the investigative “frame” established at the early stage remains throughout the proceedings. Therefore, initial response in voice phishing cases is critical and often decisive. For individuals worried about such charges, a strategy that accurately analyzes the structure of the case is essential. At the same time, voice phishing is a serious offense that should never be taken lightly. Delayed response may result in arrest and a custodial sentence. How Decent Law Firm Assists Voice phishing cases are not resolved merely by submitting a letter of remorse. Decent Law Firm provides structured legal assistance, including: Analysis of the participation structure Challenging the existence of conspiracy or co-principal liability Reviewing the applicability of aiding and abetting Designing restitution strategies Preparing and structuring statements during investigation Our criminal defense team reconstructs the co-offender framework based on case records and legally clarifies the scope of the suspect’s awareness. We also systematically design sentencing factors to maximize the possibility of avoiding detention and securing a suspended sentence where appropriate. Voice phishing punishment does not automatically result in imprisonment. However, if the initial 대응 is mishandled, it may lead to irreversible consequences. If you are currently under investigation, review your strategy before the sentencing level becomes fixed.
-
If You Are Facing Potential Criminal Liability in a Voice Phishing Police Investigation, This Is Essential Reading
Treating a Voice Phishing Police Investigation as “Witness Questioning” May Already Be Too Late In voice phishing cases, a police investigation may begin either as a witness interview or, from the outset, as a suspect interrogation, depending on the circumstances. Once investigative authorities recognize the existence of criminal suspicion and commence an investigation, suspect status is established, and the rights of a suspect—including the right to remain silent—must be guaranteed (Supreme Court of Korea, June 24, 2010, Decision 2008Do12127). However, even if an investigation begins as a witness interview, the individual’s status may be converted to that of a suspect as allegations become more concrete during questioning. For this reason, careful and strategic action is required from the very early stages. At the initial stage, investigators typically focus on quickly structuring the case around key issues such as whether bank accounts were provided, whether the individual was involved in the delivery or collection of cash, how instructions were received, and whether any form of compensation was involved. Depending on the direction of the statements made at this stage, the assessment may shift toward viewing the individual as a minor participant, an aider and abettor, or a co-perpetrator. Why Saying “I Didn’t Know” Rarely Works in Voice Phishing Cases In voice phishing investigations, the core issue is not merely whether the individual subjectively recognized the crime, but whether they were aware of the possibility of criminal conduct and nonetheless accepted that risk. Even if a person claims they did not explicitly recognize the conduct as criminal, criminal liability may still be established where dolus eventualis (conditional intent) is found based on factors such as abnormal transaction structures, repeated involvement, or the existence of financial compensation. In practice, statements such as “I thought it was suspicious but followed instructions anyway” or “I didn’t know it was illegal” frequently become decisive issues during investigations. Courts have recognized conditional intent in such cases by comprehensively considering factors including the abnormality of the transaction structure, repeated participation, the existence of monetary compensation, the general social awareness of voice phishing schemes, and any prior experience with similar incidents (Changwon District Court, May 22, 2019, Decision 2019No606; Seoul Southern District Court, Oct. 28, 2020, Decision 2020GoDan3736). While claims of good faith may be emotionally understandable, entirely different standards apply in legal evaluation. The Most Critical Point in a Voice Phishing Police Investigation: Initial Response Making spontaneous statements without legal counsel during the early stage of an investigation, or submitting to mobile phone and messenger forensic analysis without preparation, carries significant risk. In particular, many cases follow the same pattern: after being told that “telling the truth will be fine,” individuals provide a full account of events, only to find that the issue later shifts to whether they qualify as an aider, abettor, or co-offender. Subsequent procedures often progress far more quickly than expected. Depending on the initial response, cases that could have ended in non-referral at the police stage may proceed to prosecutorial dispositions such as suspension of indictment, summary indictment, or even a full criminal trial. Each outcome carries distinct legal consequences, making it essential to carefully determine the direction of the case from the very beginning. A voice phishing police investigation is not a one-time questioning process; failure at the initial response stage often directly determines the final outcome. Why Legal Assistance from Decent Law Firm Is Essential in Voice Phishing Police Investigations Decent Law Firm does not merely organize post hoc explanations in voice phishing police investigations. Before suspect status is formally fixed, we analyze the structure of the case and legally design the scope and direction of statements. Not all acts of providing accounts or transferring funds result in identical criminal liability. Co-perpetration under Article 30 of the Criminal Act and aiding and abetting under Article 32 are distinguished based on the degree of joint intent and functional control over the execution of the crime (Incheon District Court, Nov. 26, 2015, Decisions 2015GoDan2502 and 2015GoDan2957 (consolidated)). Even in the case of aiding and abetting, conditional awareness or foreseeability of the principal offender’s crime is sufficient to establish liability (Changwon District Court, May 22, 2019, Decision 2019No606). Because these legal boundaries must be determined through case-specific analysis, professional legal review is essential from the earliest stage. If statements recorded in investigative records are not strategically managed, reversing their impact in later proceedings becomes extremely difficult. A voice phishing police investigation should never be taken lightly. If an investigation has already begun, attempting to explain everything alone is not the solution. A structured approach—starting with a careful review of the case framework—is required.
-
If You Want to Avoid a Detention Warrant for Voice Phishing, Read This Carefully
What Must Be Checked at the Stage When a Detention Warrant for Voice Phishing Is Requested Once a detention warrant related to voice phishing is requested, the court schedules a pre-detention hearing (warrant review hearing) within a very short period of time. In most cases, the hearing is held as early as the day following the warrant request. All defense arguments must be fully organized within this extremely limited timeframe. At this stage, the most critical step is to accurately confirm that a detention warrant has been requested and to immediately review the detention warrant application, the criminal complaint, and the suspect’s interrogation records through legal counsel. Attempting to respond without understanding which charges the prosecutor is relying on to justify detention is, in effect, no different from facing the process completely unprepared. Key Issues to Contest at the Pre-Detention Hearing 1) Probable Cause of the Crime There must be reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused committed the crime. If the individual’s role within a voice phishing organization is unclear, or if the involvement was limited to a minor or peripheral role, it may be argued that the alleged criminal conduct has not been sufficiently substantiated by objective evidence. 2) Grounds for Detention Detention may be justified only if one of the following applies: The suspect does not have a fixed residence There is a risk of destruction of evidence There is a risk of flight or attempted flight 3) Mandatory Considerations The court must also consider factors such as the seriousness of the offense, the risk of reoffending, and the potential threat to victims or key witnesses. However, not all participants are situated in the same position. Factors such as acting merely as a courier, temporary involvement, or a lack of full awareness of the criminal scheme are critical elements that weaken the necessity for detention. Is It Over Once a Detention Warrant Is Issued? Even if a detention warrant for a voice phishing case has already been issued, it does not mean that all options are exhausted. Through a detention review (habeas-type review), it is still possible to challenge the necessity and proportionality of the detention. In parallel, strategic efforts must continue during the detention period to seek a non-indictment or the most favorable possible outcome. In addition, attempts to recover 피해, reach settlements, deposit funds with the court, and submit mitigating materials can have a direct impact on later trial proceedings and sentencing. At this stage, every decision and every written submission can significantly influence prosecutorial decisions and future sentencing outcomes. How Decent Law Firm Can Help Cases involving detention warrants for voice phishing are not simple criminal matters. They are complex cases that require a comprehensive review of organized crime elements, conspiracy liability, and potential violations of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. Attempting to respond alone, without a precise understanding of how investigators approach these cases and how courts assess detention requests, is effectively the same as proceeding on the assumption that detention is inevitable. Decent Law Firm has consistently handled voice phishing cases with a unified strategy, from the detention stage and warrant hearings through post-detention procedures. Analyzing the structure of the case and building arguments that can genuinely persuade the court—this is what Decent Law Firm does best. Many clients have already placed their trust in us throughout this process and achieved meaningful results. Before it is too late, we strongly recommend seeking legal advice.
-
How to Respond When Involved in an OTC Crypto Fraud Case
1. Understanding OTC Transactions and Their Structure OTC (Over-The-Counter) trading refers to off-exchange transactions conducted directly between individuals or through intermediaries, without using a centralized exchange. In the virtual asset market, OTC trades are commonly used for large-volume transactions, lower fees, and private settlements. The risk is that this structure can be exploited for crimes such as voice-phishing-related money laundering and fraud. “OTC crypto fraud” often occurs when criminals disguise illicit fund flows as legitimate trades and pull ordinary participants into the transaction chain. A simple claim of “I didn’t know” is no longer enough. In OTC-related investigations, authorities focus on what you knew at the time, whether you fulfilled your duty of care, and whether you could have recognized suspicious circumstances. If your explanation is inconsistent or you respond poorly at the early stage, even a transaction you believed to be lawful can escalate into criminal exposure. This is not a matter that ends as a misunderstanding. A wrong first step can lead to real punishment. 2. Potential Criminal Liability in OTC Crypto Fraud Cases 1) Elements of Fraud Under Korean Criminal Law For fraud to be established under the Korean Criminal Act, the prosecution generally must prove all of the following: Deceptive act The victim’s mistake Transfer of property Intent to unlawfully obtain property Mere participation in a transaction is not enough. The key issue is whether criminal awareness and intent can be established. 2) Possible Sentencing Ranges For general fraud, Article 347 of the Korean Criminal Act provides for up to 10 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 20 million. If the amount of unlawful gain is large, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes may apply, significantly increasing sentencing exposure: KRW 50 billion or more: life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than 5 years KRW 5 billion or more and less than KRW 50 billion: imprisonment for not less than 3 years A fine may also be imposed in addition to imprisonment, up to the amount of unlawful gain If the OTC transaction is linked to voice phishing or other telecommunications-based financial fraud, additional liability may arise under the Act on the Prevention of Telecommunications-Based Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages. 3. Key Defense Strategies at the Investigation Stage Once a suspicious transaction is identified, all further transactions must be halted immediately. Preserving evidence is critical, including: Transaction records Wallet transfer histories Messaging and chat logs Any materials related to the counterparty’s identity During questioning by investigative authorities, it is essential to consistently explain: That the OTC transaction itself followed lawful trading practices That there was no awareness that the funds were illicit That there was no conspiracy or even conditional intent to participate in criminal activity Recent case outcomes indicate that mere involvement in off-exchange trading does not automatically prove criminal intent. However, this tends to apply only where the post-incident explanation is structured, evidence-backed, and legally coherent. Where a person fails to substantiate lack of intent, criminal disposition can follow (Suwon High Court, Sept. 17, 2025, Case No. 2025No635). 4. Decent Law Firm’s Approach to OTC Crypto Fraud Defense OTC crypto fraud cases are highly sensitive to early-stage decision-making. Decent Law Firm supports clients from the outset by analyzing the transaction structure, mapping fund flows, and separating objective facts from assumptions about awareness. We develop a defense framework by: Organizing a consistent statement strategy Selecting and arranging objective supporting materials Conducting precedent-based legal analysis to prevent unfounded allegations of conspiracy or intent Even if your transaction was legitimate, it is possible to be mischaracterized as a participant in criminal activity. In such situations, professional legal representation is not optional—it is essential. Decent Law Firm provides clear standards for evaluating risk and a structured, case-specific legal process for clients considering consultation regarding alleged involvement in OTC crypto fraud schemes.
