Why ‘I only passed on the money’ does not work as a defense

High daily pay, a job delivering documents, interviews held over a messenger app. Open the file in a voice phishing courier case and the story usually begins with a job ad like this. People facing questioning say the same thing every time: “I just did what I was told and passed on the money.” Even if that is true, it is not enough on its own to clear the charge.

Intent can be found even if you did not know for sure

Even if you did not clearly know it was voice phishing, courts find intent if you thought it might be illegal and carried on with the work anyway. This is what is called dolus eventualis (미필적 고의). So rather than repeating that you did not know, it matters far more to show, with records, why you believed at the time that it was a legitimate job.

Small actions, such as whether you searched the company name when you were hired, checked its business registration, or how you explained the new job to family or friends, can serve as circumstances showing you believed the job was legitimate. On the other hand, the circumstances investigators ask about are almost always the same.

• Whether you were hired only through a messenger app, with no employment contract or face-to-face interview
• Whether the pay was excessive for the work involved
• Whether you were told to pretend to be someone else or to delete chat rooms
• Whether you split the cash you received into several cash deposits made without a bankbook

Going out even once does not end lightly

A person who collected and passed on money is investigated as a co-principal or an aider and abettor in fraud. Following an amendment on December 23, 2025, the statutory penalty for fraud is now imprisonment of up to 20 years or a fine of up to 50 million won, and Article 15-2 of the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage from Telecommunications Financial Fraud and Refund of Damaged Assets (전기통신금융사기 피해 방지 및 피해자산 환급에 관한 특별법) provides for imprisonment for a definite term of at least one year or a fine of three to five times the criminal proceeds.

If the scope of the conspiracy is read broadly, losses you never collected yourself can end up in the charges. The starting point of the defense is to pin down precisely from when to when, how many times, and from whom you collected money.

If your mobile phone has been seized, you can apply to take part in the forensic process and watch what data is extracted. It is a chance to check whether only data unfavorable to you is being picked out, and whether conversations showing that you were used have been left out.

Because couriers meet victims in person, they are the first to be identified, and if they went out several times or the amounts are large, an arrest may be followed by a request for a detention warrant. Restoring the victims' losses weighs heavily in sentencing, so where there are several victims we try to reach a settlement with each one, and for victims who cannot be reached we consider a criminal deposit (형사공탁).

The new reduction provision

On September 8, 2026, Article 17-2 was added to the same Act. It provides that the sentence may be reduced or waived for a person who, during the investigation or trial, gives statements or materials revealing other people's crimes, or provides information about catching offenders or about criminal proceeds. It also applies to cases under investigation or on trial when it took effect.

With this provision in mind, deleting Telegram chats or resetting your phone out of fear hurts you twice over. You come under suspicion of trying to destroy evidence, and you also throw away the very material that could expose the organization. Leave the instruction messages, the screens of the job ad and the records of the pay you received as they are, and we recommend deciding what to submit, and when, before you are questioned.