Supreme Court: Setting Up Computers in an Investment Fraud Office Is Not Aiding and Abetting Fraud

"Routine Work Only, No Intent to Aid the Crime"

The Supreme Court has ruled that a computer dealer who set up computers in an office on the request of a schoolmate, who later turned out to be running an investment fraud, cannot be punished for aiding and abetting fraud.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

According to legal sources on September 29, the First Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) recently overturned the lower court's decision, which had sentenced Mr. A to a suspended prison sentence for allegedly aiding and abetting fraud, and remanded the case to the Suwon High Court.

Mr. A, a computer repair and sales dealer, was asked by his middle and high school classmate, Mr. B, to set up and move computers and other office equipment at a call center in Siheung, Gyeonggi Province, between November 2024 and May of last year, and was paid installation fees for the work.

It was revealed that Mr. B, along with other accomplices, called an unspecified number of people from the call center and deceived 11 victims by falsely claiming they were selling initial public offering (IPO) shares at cheap prices, defrauding them of a total of 420 million won.

Prosecutors regarded Mr. A as an accomplice in aiding the fraud and brought the case to trial.

The lower courts found Mr. A guilty of aiding and abetting fraud, sentencing him to two years in prison, suspended for three years. Mr. A argued that he was only performing routine installation and relocation work for the computers and was unaware of any fraudulent activity, but the courts did not accept his claims.

The appellate court stated, "Mr. A disposed of computers and initialized SSDs on Mr. B's instructions, office windows were covered with blackout sheets, and terms like 'unlisted stocks' and 'rate of return' were visible on bulletin boards," concluding that "Mr. A at least implicitly recognized or could have foreseen the fraudulent activities."

However, the Supreme Court did not accept this. The bench stated, "For an accomplice to aiding and abetting to be established, there must be a close connection between the act of aiding and the commission of the principal crime, and it must be determined that the aid actually contributed to the realization of the crime by creating a specific risk for the principal or by increasing the opportunity for the crime's result to occur."

The Supreme Court judged that it was difficult to recognize the intent to aid and abet because Mr. A only received typical installation fees and did not receive any criminal proceeds, and there was no evidence of contact with other members of the organization besides Mr. B.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.