Falsification and use of private electronic records, computer fraud

Crimes established when opening mobile phones using another person's name without authorization

Recently, crimes of opening mobile phones in other people's names without authorization, either to receive sales incentives from telecom companies or to distribute them as so-called 'burner phones' (daepo phones), have increased, causing victims whose identities were stolen to incur telecommunication charges and handset costs amounting to millions of won.

The act of using another person's name without authorization to prepare an application for mobile telecommunication service subscription in the form of an electronic document constitutes the crime of fabrication of electronic records in the Criminal Act, and the act of submitting it to the telecom company constitutes the crime of exercising fabricated electronic records.

In addition, if the offender deceives the victim by claiming to open only one line, but then opens several lines, thereby providing a property advantage to the telecom company, the crime of computer fraud also applies.

Recently, attorney Joo Youngjae represented a defendant who was indicted for opening multiple mobile phones using another person's name without authorization, charged with fabrication of electronic records, exercise of fabricated electronic records, and computer fraud, and we will present the case where a suspended sentence was obtained.

Facts of the case

The defendant (client) was offered by an unidentified person around 2018, 'If you recruit people to open mobile phones non-face-to-face, I will give you a referral fee.' The client knew that the unidentified person intended to open several mobile phone numbers and purchase several handsets using the victims' names, and then distribute these as so-called 'burner phones' (daepo phones), thereby passing the costs of the handsets to the victims.

Nevertheless, with the intent to receive the referral fee, the client told victims who lacked social experience, pretending that only one or two phone services would be opened, 'I need phone subscription performance. If you lend me your name, I will open phone numbers only for a short period without purchasing any handsets. I will ensure there are no issues with handset purchases or phone charges. If any problem arises, I will take responsibility.' Thus, by deceiving the victims, the client received their ID documents and other necessary information for opening phone subscriptions and handed it over to the unidentified person.

Subsequently, the unidentified person used the victims' identities to purchase several handsets and apply for mobile service subscriptions, and the installment payments for the handsets and the usage fees were charged to the victims.

Response of attorney Joo Youngjae

Attorney Joo Youngjae, since the defendant confessed to the crime, focused on minimizing the sentence.

Attorney Joo Youngjae actively argued that this offence constituted a concurrent offence under the latter part of the Criminal Act (post-adjudication concurrent crimes) in relation to the crimes for which a final judgment had already been rendered, that the defendant was young and sincerely remorseful, that the risk of reoffending was low, and that the profit obtained from the crime was not substantial.

The court's decision

The court accepted the sentencing arguments of attorney Joo Youngjae and, despite the fact that no compensation had been made to the victims, imposed a relatively light sentence of 6 months' imprisonment and one year of suspended sentence.