2. In a case where a criminal of telecommunications fraud in the market (the so-called Bosing crime) was accused of deceiving the victim and received money from the victim to the account using the fraud, the act of defraudation leads to the completion of the crime.

Therefore, even if the offender was to possess the money of the victim, unless a consignment or a fiduciary relationship exists between the victim and the victim, he/she is in the status of keeping the money of the victim.

In addition, even if the offender withdraws cash from the account exploited for fraud, it is difficult to view such withdrawal as infringing on new legal interests because it is merely an act of implementation of the crime of fraud already established. Thus, such withdrawal does not constitute a separate crime of embezzlement against the victim of fraud.

In addition, this legal doctrine likewise applies where a paper offender who aids and abets the crime of fraud by transferring his/her own account access medium with the knowledge of the fact that he/she would be used in committing the crime of fraud voluntarily withdraws the victim’s money wired to the account exploited for fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do3045, May 31, 2017). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence duly adopted by the court provides the Defendant with a copy of the passbook in the name of the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the Defendant and transfers password to the assistant of the Defendant’s bank account in the said C bank account in the name of the Defendant, and then deposits KRW 10 million from the victim B who was accused of the assistant of the phishing fraud organization, and then arbitrarily withdraws it and uses it.