In this case, Mr. A opened three prepaid mobile phones in his name and transferred them to others in exchange for money after seeing an online post, and immediately requested two terminations and one suspension from the telecommunications company when he realized that the mobile phones could be used for voice phishing, but the police traced the money flow and began an investigation.

The legal issue is that it is a violation of the Telecommunications Business Act to provide a cell phone in one's name to another in exchange for money. According to Supreme Court precedents, it is difficult to escape punishment simply because the SIM card was not used in the actual crime or was immediately terminated.

Attorney Kim Jeon-soo of Hanbyol Law LLC suggested a relatively light punishment, such as a fine or suspension of prosecution, based on the fact that Mr. A was a first-time offender and actively requested termination and suspension immediately after recognizing the crime to prevent the spread of damage. Ms. Kim advised that it is important to prepare objective evidence such as termination and call logs in preparation for the investigation, as well as a reflection and a lawyer's opinion to prove the lack of intent and active follow-up, and that the level of punishment is determined by a combination of intent, awareness at the time of the act, adequacy of follow-up measures, and whether actual damage occurred.